Oral
Answers to
Questions

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Leaving the EU: Legal Systems

Neil Gray: What assessment his Department has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the operation of the legal system in each legal jurisdiction in the UK.

Drew Hendry: What assessment his Department has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the operation of the legal system in each legal jurisdiction in the UK.

Ben Bradley: What plans the Government have to ensure that the UK legal system continues to operate effectively after the UK leaves the EU.

David Gauke: The Government have made it a priority to ensure that there is a smooth legal transition both in our negotiations with the EU and in our domestic implementing legislation. I fully appreciate that Scotland and Northern Ireland have distinct legal systems, and that is why my Department has been working closely with the devolved Administrations, looking at how our legal and justice systems are affected by EU exit. The Government are clear that a good deal with the EU will be one that works for all parts of the United Kingdom.

Neil Gray: I welcome the new Secretary of State to his position, having shadowed him for a few months when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
The UK Government’s position papers on judicial co-operation in civil matters, data protection and judicial oversight have been dismissed by EU interlocutors as unsatisfactory, due to their lack of realism and detail. Does the Secretary of State intend to respond to that by producing more realistic and detailed proposals?

David Gauke: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for  his words. It is pleasing to know that, wherever I go, he follows.
Regarding the hon. Gentleman’s question, we are ambitious—we want to get the best deal. I appreciate that, in the course of negotiations, it is possible that our interlocutors will express an adverse opinion, but we will continue to engage and to be ambitious.

Drew Hendry: The Secretary of State has acknowledged Scotland’s distinct legal and judicial system. The role of Lord Advocate in overseeing the investigation and prosecution of crime means that, in Scotland, there is direct co-operation between Scottish law enforcement agencies and their European counterparts. Will the Minister give details of the consultations between his Department, and the Scottish Government and Scottish Law Officers in that regard?

David Gauke: We continue to engage with the Scottish Government across the board, including on that implementation matter.

Ben Bradley: Will the Minister update the House on plans in relation to foreign criminals in UK prisons and on whether, after we leave the EU, we might be able to return those who break our laws to their country of origin, rather the UK taxpayer footing the bill for their stay at Her Majesty’s pleasure?

David Gauke: Since 2010, we have removed more than 40,000 foreign national offenders from our prisons, immigration removal centres and indeed the community. There is a range of removal mechanisms that enable the return of foreign offenders to their home countries. The Government are now considering future criminal justice arrangements with the EU with the aim of continuing our close working relationship.

Kate Green: The Secretary of State will be aware that in family law there are mutual and reciprocal arrangements between EU countries to ensure that judgments are recognised and enforced. How does he envisage the interests of children being protected after we exit the EU and are no longer able to rely on those mutual arrangements?

David Gauke: The hon. Lady raises an important point. Having satisfactory arrangements with the European Union in that and other matters is important. It is right that we are ambitious so that the interests of children are put at the heart of what we do.

Bob Neill: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post—it is nice to see a lawyer there. I hope that he has a lengthy tenure, if not quite as long as that of the last lawyer from Ipswich who was Lord Chancellor, and with a better ending.
Much of the debate has been concentrated on criminal justice co-operation. In his speech on being sworn in, my right hon. Friend rightly referred to the importance of the UK as a jurisdiction of choice in civil and commercial litigation. Will he make sure that that aspect is not lost in our negotiations, in particular the importance to London and the UK’s financial services sector of having contractual certainty?

David Gauke: I thank my hon. Friend. Given that the last Lord Chancellor from Ipswich was Cardinal Wolsey, who ran into some difficulties in negotiations with a  powerful European supranational body, I should tread carefully. It is important that in our negotiations we try as best we can to provide the certainty my hon. Friend seeks.

Joanna Cherry: I welcome the new Secretary of State for Justice to his place. Sir David Edward, a distinguished former judge in Scotland and at the European Court of Justice, has said that so far
“the UK Government has overlooked the significance of the separate Scottish legal system, the Scottish judicial system and the Scottish prosecution system in relation to justice and home affairs issues”
in their negotiations with the EU. Will the new Secretary of State undertake to meet me to discuss how those oversights might be rectified?

David Gauke: I am not sure that I would accept the hon. and learned Lady’s characterisation of the position as one of oversight. I made it clear in the very first answer I gave in this role that I fully appreciate that Scotland had a distinct legal system. However, I would certainly be delighted to discuss the matter with her further.

Joanna Cherry: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to meet me, but that was not my characterisation; it was the characterisation of a senior judge in the Scottish courts and in the Court of Justice. The judge went on to describe the UK Government’s paper on enforcement and dispute resolution as
“an undergraduate essay which would have failed”.
He says that those who are writing the papers are not aware of the problems posed by the separate Scottish legal system and that they do not want to hear from the experts who have offered to help. This is a serious problem. Will the Secretary of State, in his new role, undertake to listen to those who know about the Scottish legal system and to take on board their concerns in his negotiations on these matters?

David Gauke: I want to ensure that we end up in a position that is good for the legal system and legal services in every part of the United Kingdom. That certainly includes Scotland, and of course I will want to engage with representations and representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom to ensure that we get the best possible deal.

Philip Hollobone: After Brexit, can we do something that we cannot do now? In other words, if an EU national is found guilty of an imprisonable offence, will we be able to deport them to serve their sentence in prison in their own country and ban them from ever returning?

David Gauke: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), we are considering future criminal justice arrangements with the European Union. We want close working relationships, but we also need to work together to ensure that foreign national offenders can be removed when possible.

Homelessness Reduction Act 2017

Bob Blackman: What progress he has made on implementing his duties under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.

Rory Stewart: I should like to begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his work on the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. With the agreement of colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Act should come into operation in April. It is absolutely vital that every prisoner leaving custody as a home to  go to.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend and welcome him to his new position. As he rightly says, it is in our best interest that ex-offenders leaving prison do not reoffend. One of the key issues is to ensure that prison governors honour their commitment under the Homelessness Reduction Act to ensure that people are prepared for life outside prison. What action will he take to ensure that prison governors train offenders who are due to leave prison so that they do not reoffend?

Rory Stewart: There are two key things to do: first, to empower governors so that they have real flexibility and control over education budgets and career advice; and, secondly, to connect that to housing. There is an obligation under the Act that my hon. Friend has championed, and co-ordination with local authorities will be essential.

Ruth Cadbury: Why has the number of women who become homeless on release doubled in only a year? Is this not more evidence of the Government failing prisoners and probation policies?

Rory Stewart: There are a number of complex issues relating to homelessness, but we absolutely agree that this is unacceptable and shocking. We need to work much more closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with local authorities and with prisons to ensure that we cut those numbers.

Legal Aid

Derek Thomas: What steps he is taking to ensure that legal aid is available to people who are entitled to that aid.

Lucy Frazer: The provision of legal aid to support the most vulnerable is an important part of our justice system. We spend £1.6 billion a year on legal aid, which is more than a fifth of the Ministry of Justice’s budget. In terms of accessing legal aid, there is an online tool at gov.uk to help people to check their entitlement to it.

Derek Thomas: I welcome that answer, but people in my constituency in west Cornwall find it hard to access the legal aid that they are entitled to. In fact, there  is only one office there that holds a legal aid contract, and it deals only with family law. Will the Department assess how the changes in legal aid funding have  affected rural people, and consider measures to address the shortage?

Lucy Frazer: Maintaining access to justice is extremely important, which is why the Legal Aid Agency regularly reviews the capacity of the legal aid market to cope with demand and takes action when regional shortfalls develop. Those in need of urgent advice in Cornwall and elsewhere can always use the civil legal aid specialist telephone service. In autumn 2017, the Legal Aid Agency began national tendering for new civil contracts to start in autumn 2018.

Ellie Reeves: I have received hundreds of emails from people in my constituency who face eviction, live in overcrowded conditions or rent properties that are in dire need of repair. Does the Minister agree that early legal advice in housing matters needs to be restored urgently, and that it is unacceptable that large parts of the country have no housing legal aid providers at all?

Lucy Frazer: As the hon. Lady will know, the previous Lord Chancellor committed to a review of legal aid later this year, and I also commit to reviewing the situation later this year. Legal aid for housing is always available and can be accessed through the telephone gateway.

Yasmin Qureshi: Judicial review is a key tool for ordinary people to challenge unjust and unlawful decisions by the state and other public bodies. Deep cuts to legal aid have undermined that ability, so will the Minister commit to reviewing legal aid funding for judicial review in the Government’s forthcoming legal aid review?

Lucy Frazer: As I have already mentioned, a legal aid review is taking place later this year. As a matter of principle, legal aid is available for judicial review in certain circumstances when certain conditions are met.

Oakhill Secure Training Centre

Iain Stewart: What recent assessment he has made of standards at Oakhill secure training centre in Milton Keynes.

Phillip Lee: The findings of a recent Ofsted inspection report on Oakhill secure training centre are completely unacceptable. We took urgent action to address Ofsted’s concerns. The Ministry of Justice’s monitoring team has been carrying out further scrutiny to investigate Ofsted’s findings.

Iain Stewart: The young people held in the centre often have complex, challenging needs and require considerable intervention to help their rehabilitation. By when can we hope to see some tangible improvement in that intervention?

Phillip Lee: My hon. Friend is spot on. These vulnerable children require the very best care, particularly for their mental health. In negotiations with the main contractor, I rule out absolutely nothing if the contract obligations are not being met.

David Hanson: rose—

John Bercow: Order. The right hon. Gentleman needs to focus his supplementary question exclusively on the Oakhill secure training centre in Milton Keynes.

David Hanson: Absolutely, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister taken any view on reducing the financial arrangements with G4S for running Oakhill or imposed any sanctions? What does it take to lose a contract?

Phillip Lee: The right hon. Gentleman, as a previous Minister responsible for the institution, will acknowledge that the contract is subject to a series of obligations. It was signed in 2004 and lasts for 25 years. I am fully aware of the need to improve standards at Oakhill. I rule absolutely nothing out, and I have already met senior people at G4S to point that out.

Imran Hussain: Oakhill, which is run by G4S, was found last year to make use of high levels of force, but G4S is not the only private security company using high levels of force against vulnerable groups. Today’s report into the Sodexo-run Peterborough Prison shows that it has become the first women’s prison in years to be deemed not safe enough, with high levels of force and the overuse of strip searching, so is the Minister worried that profit is being put before prisoner safety?

Phillip Lee: The children being held at Oakhill can sometimes be extremely challenging, and the staff have to be able to control them to protect not only themselves, but other children and staff. With reference to Sodexo and the report into Peterborough Prison, the situation is not acceptable. We have already engaged with Sodexo, particularly around strip searching, and I expect and have demanded improvements.

Victim Impact Statements

Tom Pursglove: What steps he is taking to support people who make a victim impact statement.

David Gauke: It is critical that the voice of the victim is heard in the criminal justice system. The victims code is clear that victims are entitled to make a victim personal statement to explain in their own words, to a court or to the Parole Board, how the crime has affected them. We are spending £96 million this year to fund critical support services for victims of crime. Under the code, all victims are entitled to a needs assessment to determine what emotional and practical support they need.

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. I know from a family in my constituency that making a victim impact statement, and having to do so regularly, is a very stressful and nerve-racking experience. What steps is he taking to ensure that in those situations the victim, rather than the offender, is the priority?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend has raised this with me before. We are committed to making sure that practical and emotional support is in place for victims throughout the criminal justice process, such as by providing independent sexual violence and domestic violence advisers.  If victims wish to attend a parole hearing to present their victim personal statement, a Secretary of State representative is allocated to provide support and guidance on the day.

Paula Sherriff: Steven Mullins was 12 years old when he was abducted, sexually assaulted and brutally murdered on his way home from school. His killer was released last month. Although the family submitted a victim impact statement, they feel extremely let down both by the Parole Board and by the victim liaison service, which have lost their letters, ignored their letters and left so many of their questions unanswered. It appears that a worrying pattern is emerging. Will the Minister please meet me and Mr and Mrs Mullins to give them some of the answers they deserve?

David Gauke: First, I express my sympathy with Mr and Mrs Mullins, who have experienced the most horrendous situation. In the context of another case, I have already made it clear that we need to look again at how the victim support process works. We want to look at that specific case and, more generally, at how we can improve the situation of victims. In this particular case, of course I am willing to meet the hon. Lady and Mr and Mrs Mullins to see if their concerns can be properly addressed.

Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post. In 2009, my constituent Mr Samuel was acquitted of common assault following an unsuccessful prosecution centred on a fabricated witness statement by the police. Since then, his efforts to seek redress through the courts have been frustrated by a cover-up that I believe reaches right to the top of the Crown Prosecution Service. Will my right hon. Friend please accept a meeting with me at his earliest convenience to discuss the real issues concerning this case?

David Gauke: I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend. I am not in a position to comment on that particular case, but I am of course willing to engage with him.

Richard Burgon: I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. Victims must be at the heart of our justice system, but we have seen failings in enabling victims to give their impact statements in the Worboys case. We have seen the police failing victims, and victims are asking why there were no further prosecutions. In fact, victims feel let down throughout the process. I ask the Secretary of State once again to support victims, and to help to restore their faith and that of the wider public in our justice system. Will he agree today to an independent end-to-end review of the whole handling of this case?

David Gauke: As I announced to the House on Friday, Dame Glenys Stacey has agreed to undertake a fact-finding review of what happened with regard to victims in the Worboys case. It is important that we get to the bottom of precisely what happened and whether processes were followed. I am aware of conflicting evidence on that point, so it is important that we pursue it. I quite understand why the hon. Gentleman suggests an end-to-end review, and indeed there are questions that need to be considered about what happened in 2008-09 and so on. As I have said before, at the moment I want to focus on the immediate questions in front of us in terms of support for victims and the Parole Board process.

Zac Goldsmith: The proposed release of John Worboys has absolutely horrified and terrified his many, many victims. Like me, they are appalled to learn today that he has been moved to London’s category A Belmarsh Prison. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will do everything in his power to ensure that Worboys is released with strict licence conditions that keep him out of Greater London?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend has been tireless on this matter in recent weeks. The precise conditions are operational matters that are decided at operational level, but let me reassure him that nearly a fortnight ago I wrote to the relevant authorities and stressed the need to ensure that the concerns of victims are at the heart  of the process and that the most stringent conditions are applied.

HMP Liverpool

Rosie Cooper: What recent assessment he has made of the condition of prisoners’ accommodation at HMP Liverpool.

Rory Stewart: I visited Liverpool prison yesterday. The inspector’s report was genuinely disturbing, and of course that is reflected on the ground. There are some very good prison officers working there, but unfortunately the conditions are really shocking, particularly basic sanitation, with piles of garbage. We now have a new governor in place, millions of pounds are going into the infrastructure, and 172 places have been closed so that we can begin a proper refurbishment and maintenance programme. Most importantly, we must not allow this to happen again.

Rosie Cooper: These appalling conditions did not emerge overnight. Who will be held to account locally and nationally for failing to implement the recommendations of the many critical reports about the prison? How in 21st century Britain could this national disgrace be allowed to happen? Lack of adequate healthcare meant that lives were lost. What happened to the regulators and the leadership? Were they being paid while asleep?

Rory Stewart: Those are important questions that we will look at closely. We have published an action plan for Liverpool prison. There are two key things we need to do. The first is about leadership. The governor has now been replaced. The second is that we have put in place a new urgent notification process, so if anything like this happens again and inspectors raise it, we will be forced to reply within 28 days. But that is only the beginning, because this requires a complete change in culture that focuses on getting back to basics: cleaning the prison, reducing the violence, reducing the drugs and making sure the healthcare provision is in place.

Charlie Elphicke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post—the whole House knows of his passion for prisons and prisons policy. Will he hold to account those in the senior echelons of the Prison Service for the disgraceful and appalling conditions in the prison?

Rory Stewart: This is a big question of management. There are many very hard-working people at Liverpool prison who take their jobs very seriously and work very long hours, but we have to balance that with a recognition  that clearly there have been fundamental failings. People will be held to account. Above all, we need to work with the team at the prison to ensure that in future it is a clean and decent place, both to protect the public and to reduce reoffending.

Dan Carden: I welcome the Minister’s prompt visit to HMP Liverpool in his new role, and to Altcourse prison, which is in my constituency. His action plan states that there will be a full conditional survey and investment proposal for medium-term refurbishment. Given that Walton prison was built in 1855—some 15 years before this Palace was completed—is that the most realistic outcome for the future of the prison?

Rory Stewart: It is certainly true that there are challenges with older buildings, as we see with this place, but it is possible to keep them going—Westminster Hall was built in 1080. Stafford prison, which was built in the late 18th century, is a clean and decent prison. We will look carefully at the fabric, and in some cases there is reason to build a new wing. But in Liverpool prison we can make a huge difference simply with £2.5 million for new windows and for refurbishing individual cells.

Richard Burgon: The inspectors described the conditions at HMP Liverpool as the worst they have seen, citing rat infestations and filthy conditions. Prison maintenance at Liverpool was outsourced to Amey. This shows that the problems with outsourcing go way beyond Carillion, which mismanaged maintenance at 50 different prisons. Will the Secretary of State commit to a review looking at bringing prison maintenance back in house, in Liverpool and at all prisons, as Labour has pledged to do?

Rory Stewart: We will look carefully at the maintenance issues in Liverpool, but sadly the problems are not only to do with Amey; they are also to do with relationships between management and the contractors and how prisoners were, or were not, used to clean the estate. We have made a huge amount of difference in just the past five weeks by changing not the Amey contract but the management approach and the focus on cleanliness.

Richard Burgon: I thank the Minister for his answer on Amey and contractors, but it is hard to have faith that he will address the problems at Liverpool or, in fact, any prison, because it has recently come to light that his Government handed £40 million to Carillion in 2017, even after the then prisons Minister had expressed concerns in Parliament about Carillion’s performance in prisons. Will not poor maintenance in Liverpool continue to contribute to inhumane conditions while responsibility is left in the hands of private contractors who, in reality, put profit first?

Rory Stewart: We do not believe that this is fundamentally an ideological fight between the private and public sectors. Most of those people working for Carillion—70% of them—were public servants just three years ago, and most of those people working for Amey were public servants in the prison service. Most of the problems have been solved through basic management and leadership. There has been a deep clean, the yard units have been increased from five to 18, and the conditions have improved rapidly. In the end, a lot of this is about management, not a private/public debate.

Offenders: Employment and Education

Michael Fabricant: What steps the Government are taking to improve access for offenders to employment and literacy education.

Pauline Latham: What steps the Government are taking to improve access for offenders to employment and education.

Rory Stewart: We have been doing three things on education: first, we have been making sure that governors are empowered to bring in their own education providers; secondly, we have been setting minimum standards, particularly on English language learning; and thirdly, through the new futures network, we have been connecting people to jobs.

John Bercow: I call Michael Fabricant; get in there, man.

Michael Fabricant: I will!
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that 46% of prisoners have a literacy age of only 11. That proportion is three times the national average, which is still too high. Does he agree that that lack of literacy is often the reason why people go to prison in the first place? Will he explain in a bit more detail how we can reduce the illiteracy level so that we do not get reoffending?

John Bercow: Not too much detail.

Rory Stewart: As the Speaker implies in his reprimand to me, the causes of offending are many and multiple. Literacy is one of them, along with many issues relating to people’s health, education, social background and, indeed, our criminal justice system as a whole. Nevertheless, literacy is key to the reduction of reoffending because it is key to getting a good job. Good education provision in prisons, driven by governors, is going to be key to addressing this issue.

John Bercow: It was a gentle exhortation, I would say.

Pauline Latham: Can the Minister say anything more about the steps the Government are taking further to empower governors to deliver effective education and training in prisons?

Rory Stewart: Yes. We have empowered governors by having in place a new procurement contract, which means that we in the Ministry are going to do the central procurement bureaucracy, but the governors will be able to choose who they use to train and educate the prisoners. I saw a good example in Altcourse Prison in Liverpool of how governors are also going to be able to choose which companies to pair with. The excellent work on metal welding that I saw in Altcourse will really contribute to those prisoners getting jobs in the community.

Helen Jones: Does the Minister agree that whatever plans he comes up with will require there to be enough prison officers on the estate so that they can release prisoners from their cells   and take them to education and training classes? Does he now accept that the Government’s dash to reduce the number of prison officers has seriously hampered the chances of preventing prisoners from reoffending?

Rory Stewart: Among the many challenges that face education in prisons is the issue of numbers, which is why we have now committed to having 2,500 more prison officers on the estate, and we are delivering that ahead of target. That will allow us to have in place the key-worker programmes, in which each officer will be paired with six prisoners to guide them through the process.

Gregory Campbell: Does the Minister accept that there are some good examples of literacy classes in prisons and reoffending rates thereby reducing? Will he undertake to ensure that best practice from throughout the United Kingdom is replicated so that reoffending rates fall across the UK?

Rory Stewart: That is absolutely true. An enormous number of programmes have huge success in reducing reoffending. For example, in Brixton prison, the Clink programme has reduced reoffending by 43%, but we can do much more to learn the lessons and have a proper standardised document that takes what works elsewhere and drives it through the entire system.

Andrew Selous: In order to encourage more businesses to take on ex-offenders, the Government need to lead by example and not just by exhortation. The Ban the Box initiative was brought in across Government a few years ago to encourage that. How is ex-offender employment going within Government and the public sector?

Rory Stewart: First, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who did this job far better than I will be able to do. One of the things that he introduced, which is going very well at the moment, is working with the Ministry of Defence. We are providing basic supplies for British military troops. It is something that is providing not just employment to prisoners, but the training and vocational skills they require for future employment.

Tony Lloyd: Prisoners move round the prison system and, in the end, they come out of the prison system. One thing that consistently goes wrong is the lack of consistency in education and training between different institutions and in institutions once the prisoner leaves. The Minister has talked about power to the governor, but governors must work within the construct of the wider environment. What will he do to ensure that we have that consistency?

Rory Stewart: This is of course a balance between empowering the governor so that they can have a tailored programme that is flexible and works for the prison and having decent national standards. That will mean setting the curriculum at a national level, having the area managers engaged over the governors and also giving the governors the ability to have education that is relevant to their areas—skills that are relevant to the jobs outside the prison gates.

Parole Board

Alberto Costa: What steps he has taken to ensure that the Parole Board takes account of public safety in its decision on releasing a prisoner.

David Gauke: Public safety is the primary consideration in Parole Board decisions on releasing a prisoner. The law requires that the Parole Board may direct release only if it is satisfied that continued detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. Parole Board members are selected on account of their experience and ability to assess risk. Their decisions are based on a comprehensive assessment of the ongoing risk posed by the offender, using detailed reports produced by risk management professionals. More broadly, I have already announced that my Department will be carrying out a full review of the relevant processes and procedures in place for victims relating to Parole Board decisions, and we will consider whether they should be improved.

Alberto Costa: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post. Both of us worked in the same City firm—Richards Butler—at different stages over a number of years. In light of the recent John Worboys case, my constituents have raised similar concerns with regard to the release of Colin Pitchfork who brutally raped and murdered two teenage girls in my constituency and pleaded not guilty. He was only found guilty as a result of DNA evidence, which was a first at the time. What assurances can my right hon. Friend provide for the safety of my constituents and others who have not been fully considered in this matter? Will he assure us that the Parole Board will take into account the safety of our citizens in regard to Mr Pitchfork’s release?

David Gauke: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The safety of the public is the Parole Board’s overriding concern in considering whether a prisoner should be released, and that will be the Board’s concern when it comes to reviewing Pitchfork’s detention. I can confirm that the families of Pitchfork’s victims are receiving regular contact under the Probation Service Victim Contact Scheme. Specifically, they have been given the opportunity to submit a victim personal statement to the Parole Board and to make representations regarding licence conditions for any upcoming parole hearing.

Jim Shannon: On the special protections in place for the release of sex offenders, does the Minister believe that releasing them to the same area that the attacks took place re-traumatises the victims and stirs up community anxiety?

David Gauke: Ultimately, these are operational decisions. A number of factors have to be taken into account in deciding what licensed conditions exist, but, clearly, the views and concerns of victims are an important part of that process.

Justine Greening: In relation to the Parole Board’s review of public safety, for those of us with deeply concerned victims of John Worboys in our constituencies, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will at least co-operate with the judicial review now being brought by victims?

David Gauke: In my statement to the House on Friday, I set out that I would not be pursuing a judicial review on behalf of the Government in this case, but I also made it very clear that I did not want to say or do anything that would in any way stand in the way of others who may have different routes into a judicial review. I maintain that position.

Victims of Crime

Neil Coyle: Whether the Government plan to introduce new legislative proposals on enshrining rights for victims.

Gareth Johnson: What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

Phillip Lee: The Government want victims to get the support they need to cope with, and as far as possible recover from, the effects of crime. We are spending £96 million in 2017-18 to fund critical support services for victims of crime. That includes £7.2 million for nationally commissioned rape support services.

Neil Coyle: John Worboys lived in Rotherhithe in my constituency and is not welcome back. He has not served the sentence he was given and was not prosecuted for the vast majority of his crimes. How are the Government working with victims, police authorities and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that sex attackers are prosecuted for their crimes, and how is the Ministry of Justice better ensuring that victims’ rights are upheld in future parole decisions?

Phillip Lee: The case of Worboys has troubled us all; it has troubled me personally—of course it has. In this particular case, Dame Glenys Stacey is investigating the review from a probation point of view. As the Secretary of State has already said, there are operational responsibilities with regard to where he is transferred to and the directions when he is released and where he can go. The Department is engaged with that on a daily basis.

Gareth Johnson: The biggest insult that can be given to a victim of crime is the imposition of a derisory sentence on the offender. Will my hon. Friend update the House on his plans to widen the scope of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, as set out in the Conservative party manifesto?

Phillip Lee: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Government committed in their manifesto to consider the extension of the scope of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General is reviewing that.

Gloria De Piero: We all know that, too often, victims are failed by the criminal justice system. That is presumably why, in 2015, the Conservatives matched Labour’s manifesto commitment to enshrine victims’ rights in a victims law. It is three years on. Can Ministers give me a single good reason why it has  not happened?

Phillip Lee: After Easter my victims strategy will be published, as promised, and within it there will be recommendations on legislative and non-legislative measures, part of which will be the legislative underpinning of the victims code.

Drones

Jeremy Quin: What steps the Government are taking to stop the use of drones over prisons.

Rory Stewart: I first pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), for his extraordinary work on drones. We have done a range of work, ranging from Operation Trenton with the police, which took place in 2016, through to the conviction of over 28 individuals for drone-related offences.

Jeremy Quin: What particular extra support is given to those prisons with a high incidence of drone attacks? Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss potential improvements to the relevant legislation?

Rory Stewart: We have established specialist teams for prisons that have particular vulnerabilities to drone attacks. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss some of the legislative issues. I also believe that there is much more we can do on basic issues such as netting and grills, as well as focusing on high technology.

Richard Benyon: Drones are one of the ways in which mobile phones are got into prisons, where they can be used for criminality alongside drugs. What measures are being taken to use technology to limit the use of mobile phones in prison?

Rory Stewart: Two types of technology can be used on mobile telephones. One is jamming technology, and the second, which is more commonly used in prison, is a wand to detect mobile telephones. An astonishing number of phones—at over 20,000, there are far too many—are detected in prisons. We should be addressing this in two ways. The first is by making sure that they do not get in: these are closed environments and we should be able to massively reduce the amount coming in. The second is that, by putting phones in cells to allow people to talk to their families, we can monitor the calls and control the need for phones in the first place.

Court Improvements

Andrew Lewer: What steps his Department is taking to improve the court experience for people who work in the justice system.

Lucy Frazer: The Ministry of Justice has plans for a £1 billion modernisation programme for the courts. This will streamline and simplify processes using technology, helping those who work in the courts and those who use them.

Andrew Lewer: Will the Minister give an assessment of the Department’s recent work in improving the performance of the alternative dispute resolution scheme,  which is intended to help consumers resolve disputes with traders but also to ease the volume of work in the courtroom?

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance and value of alternative dispute resolutions. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service already runs a small claims mediation service to help parties resolve claims worth under £10,000 before a hearing. We are also working to offer an online mediation service for those who begin their claims online.

Cat Smith: Under this Government hundreds of courts have closed, and I now see that Fleetwood court is on the latest consultation list. How do these court closures contribute to a positive experience for “those who work in the courts and those who use them”?

Lucy Frazer: Last year, nationally, court and tribunal services were used at only 58% of their available hearing capacity. Moreover, as I have outlined, we are planning to spend £1 billion on modernising the courts service  by using technology to put some processes online  and employ video evidence more effectively. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to consider the best use of the money that we spend on the legal services system, as we are doing through a consultation that will include the hon. Lady’s local magistrates court. We will listen closely. It is important to remember, however, that all the money saved through any court closures will be put back into the justice system, making sure that it works effectively for everybody in it.

Topical Questions

Priti Patel: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Gauke: The Worboys case has made it clear to me that there are some aspects of the Parole Board’s decision-making process that need to be examined and improved. It is crucial that we preserve the independence of the Parole Board, but equally important that these decisions can be scrutinised and, in some circumstances, reconsidered. That is why I announced on Friday the expansion of the scope of the review of the Parole Board to include not just transparency of decision making, but whether, in what circumstances, and how outcomes can be challenged. I will not rush to conclusions. This is a complex area where the rightful concerns of victims will be considered but also balanced with the legal rights of offenders. We will have completed the review by Easter, and I will report thereafter.

Priti Patel: The Lord Chancellor will be aware of the case of my constituent who was left blinded in one eye and unable to work because of her abusive ex-partner. The offender was sentenced by our court to a pathetically small 22 months and released early, and the Crown Prosecution Service could not be bothered to pursue  a compensation order. Will he personally review how this case has been handled, the soft sentence given, and the failures of the criminal justice system to support  the victim?

David Gauke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising what certainly appears to be an extremely distressing case. We are looking at options to strengthen our response to domestic abuse and hope to bring forward proposals soon. I cannot comment on individual sentencing decisions, and prosecution decisions are made by the CPS. I will, however, look at the role that my Department had in this case and write to her in response to her specific questions.

Emma Lewell-Buck: My constituent Kim Mitchell was the victim of child sexual abuse in 1990 when she was only eight years old. Kim had to suffer the trauma of growing up with the authorities not believing her, yet after a long battle her abuser was eventually charged just last year. Sadly, Kim has been denied criminal injuries compensation due to a minor unspent criminal conviction. Does the Secretary of State think this is fair?

Phillip Lee: It sounds like an appalling case. I ask the hon. Lady to write to me about it and I am happy to meet her.

Martin Vickers: Constituents repeatedly complain to me that dangerous criminals do not as a matter of course serve the sentence given by the courts. What action is the Department taking to ensure that sufficient prison places are available so that dangerous criminals can serve the sentence deemed appropriate by the courts?

Rory Stewart: We focus on making sure that we have a proper capital investment programme in place, so additional money has been allocated for the building of new prisons, two are currently being commissioned, and we currently have spare places in our prisons. To reassure my hon. Friend, it is absolutely vital that we have the places so that people can serve their sentence. Sentences should not be driven by availability of prison places.

Paul Blomfield: In my recent community consultation, real concern was expressed about the lack of access to legal aid, particularly for employment, housing and welfare cases. In an earlier exchange, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) failed to acknowledge that, since the 2012 changes, there has been a 75% fall in the number of civil legal aid cases. With the Department facing cuts of £800 million, how confident is the Minister that the review she mentioned earlier will provide the access to justice that is currently being denied to hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable?

Lucy Frazer: It is very important that those who are most vulnerable get access to legal aid, and legal aid is available for those who are in need at the most critical moments in their life. The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing, and legal aid is available where there is homelessness or where disrepairs to the home seriously threaten an individual’s life or health. We are reviewing legal aid, and we will update the House accordingly.

Matthew Offord: Islamic and Jewish religious traditions insist that bodies be buried as soon as possible after death, so does the Minister agree with me that it is reprehensible for the north London coroner, Mary Hassell, independently to insist on a policy in which
“no death will be prioritised in any way over any other because of the religion of the deceased or family”?

Phillip Lee: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am aware of the situation, having met representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Muslim burial representatives in October 2016. Coroners are independent of the Government, but I do recognise that there are some sensitivities around this issue and that there have been some difficulties in communication between the coroner and certain parties. That is why I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and, indeed, those representatives again in the Department.

Ruth George: Does the Secretary of State think it right that the number of women experiencing domestic violence who are forced to represent themselves in court has doubled since 2012, and what steps is he taking to give them better access to legal representation?

David Gauke: First, as I said a moment or so ago, we are looking to say more about domestic violence in the near future. This is a matter that the Government take very seriously across the board. On legal aid, as the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire, has already pointed out, we are currently undertaking a review.

Julia Lopez: We know that conversion to a radical brand of Islamist thinking too often occurs in a prison setting. Will the Minister update the House on the work being done to address this issue and set out the procedures to vet religious officials working with the vulnerable prison population?

Rory Stewart: This is a hugely important issue for Members on both sides of the House. We know absolutely that extremism—we can see this in France, and we of course saw it in Iraq—can be driven in a prison setting. The problem is not simply the 230 prisoners arrested for terrorist offences, but others who can be influenced when they are in a prison setting. We are working very hard with colleagues in the Home Office on this issue, and it will be a priority for the Secretary of State and me during our time in office.

Eleanor Smith: Does the Minister believe that the funding gap in the NHS is having an impact on healthcare provision in our prisons?

Phillip Lee: Healthcare in prisons was a priority for me when I took over in July 2016: it was the first thing I started to ask about. The Ministry of Justice now has a much closer relationship with the Department of Health with regard to the provision of healthcare. We have made advances in the transfer of patients’ information—when prisoners come in, their patient data follow them—which was a problem in the past. I am under no illusions about the healthcare challenges still faced within the prison system, and that is why I  will continue to work actively with the Department of Health, which is ultimately the Department responsible for the provision of those services.

Philip Dunne: I was pleased, along with other Shropshire and Telford MPs, to see last Friday that Telford magistrates court was not included in the list of courts to be consulted on, but will the Minister meet me and other Shropshire MPs to understand how important it is to retain the last magistrates court in our county?

Lucy Frazer: I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and other MPs from the area. There are two consultations taking place: one in relation to eight specific court closures, and a wider consultation on the future of our courts. I encourage my hon. Friend to participate in that, and to highlight any concerns he has about his local area or nationally.

Mary Glindon: Can the Minister tell the House why Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is paying more than £30 million to PwC consultants for a digital court system that has not been subject to democratic processes, and is not backed by evidence that it will improve access to justice?

Lucy Frazer: As I have outlined, there is a £1 billion modernisation programme, which is very complex and which we need to get right. It involves a number of aspects that need scrutiny. PwC is replacing a number of smaller providers and fulfilling an important service.

Bob Neill: Recent reports by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons reveal a consistent failure by the Prison Service to act on recommendations made by the inspector in previous reports. Does the Minister agree that compliance with inspectorate reports should be the norm, rather than the exception?

Rory Stewart: Absolutely. Peter Clarke, the chief inspector of prisons, does an extraordinary job. We are doing  two things to make sure that we implement those recommendations better. First, we have set up a special unit in the Ministry to follow up on every one of those recommendations. Secondly, we have introduced an urgent notification process, which requires us to reply within 28 days to any issues raised by the inspector.

Stephen Lloyd: Following the recent round of court closures, the MOJ committed to ensuring that there was adequate alternative provision after closing Eastbourne courts. That has not happened, despite the Courts and Tribunals Service saying that it had. Will the Minister agree to meet me and legal representatives from Eastbourne to resolve this wholly unsatisfactory situation?

Lucy Frazer: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that issue.

Philip Hollobone: Pakistani nationals make up one of the largest national groups in our prisons, but the prisoner transfer agreement with Pakistan has been suspended for the last eight years. As a matter of urgency, can we get it up and running again?

Rory Stewart: My hon. Friend will be aware that the prisoner transfer agreement was suspended because of the corrupt release of prisoners from Pakistani prisons. We are addressing that at the moment with the Government of Pakistan, and we continue to work very closely with officials in the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and the Home Office to make sure that we continue to return a record number of foreign national offenders—4,000 last year—to the places from which they came.

Layla Moran: In the 18 months prior to May 2017, three openly transgender women took their own lives while they were in custody in England. What is being done to ensure that staff have the right training and, critically, that prisoners have the right mental health support to head off such tragic events?

Phillip Lee: The hon. Lady is right that such events are tragic. We are working extremely hard on training staff to recognise the particular needs of transgender offenders. The challenge for the system is that they are a relatively small number of people spread across a number of prisons. We are making some progress, but there is more to do.

Paul Scully: It is good to hear the Minister offer to speak to Members around the House about the courts in their patch. When she does so, will she explain to them about modernisation and digitalisation, and how those changes may improve access to courts?

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend makes an important point. First, this is a consultation, and I am very happy to engage with any colleagues who would like to discuss it, because we are listening. Secondly, the future of our courts is exciting, and transformation will take place through technology. Interestingly, in a document entitled “Transforming Our Justice System”, the then Lord Chief Justice, the then Lord Chancellor and the Senior President of Tribunals highlighted the fact that as our courts and tribunals are modernised, we will need fewer buildings.

Daniel Zeichner: I congratulate the hon. and learned Lady, my neighbour, on her appointment. She will have noticed the very strong  and universally hostile reaction in Cambridge and Cambridgeshire to her plans to close the magistrates court. Can she reassure us that local people will be properly listened to, and better still, will she withdraw those plans today?

Lucy Frazer: As I have highlighted, these plans take place within the context of a £1 billion modernisation of the court system, and in circumstances where, nationally, courts and tribunal services are not used at capacity. As I have said, I will listen properly in the court closures consultation, although the Lord Chancellor will make the ultimate decision. I would like to point out that five sites identified in the last consultation on court closures remain open following the review. When strong cases are made, we will listen.

Andrew Selous: When a prisoner is released, they are not even at base camp in their rehabilitation unless they have accommodation. Some local authorities actively discriminate against  ex-offenders—for example, by claiming that they have no local connection because they have been sent to a prison a long way away. Fairness is what is required. Will the Minister challenge that behaviour with his counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government?

Rory Stewart: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his knowledge of this issue. There are three things we are doing to address this issue, but we can do much more. The first is having a statutory duty on governors to identify prisoners who are at risk of homelessness. The second is investing more in bail accommodation support services to provide temporary support and accommodation. The third is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to make sure that, through the Housing First pilots, we can actually have homes available even for people with severe mental health needs. Housing is essential.

Sarah Jones: One of my constituents has a young son who is serving a very long prison sentence. He often spends 23 out of 24 hours locked up in his cell. How does the Minister think that is affecting his mental health and his chances of rehabilitation on release?

Rory Stewart: Clearly, this is not good. Prisoners need decent, purposeful activity. If they are locked up in their cell for too long, they are obviously not having educational opportunities. We should aim, as the chief inspector of prisons made clear, to make sure that people are spending eight or 10 hours a day outside their cells. That is partly about numbers of staff, which is why we have brought 250 more staff into the Prison Service. It is also about better scheduling of educational and vocational provision. However, the situation the hon. Lady describes is not acceptable.

Liz McInnes: Following campaigns by victims’ families, the Government announced in October last year that they would bring in tougher sentences for those causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving, but still nothing has happened. Why the delay?

David Gauke: We will be reporting to the House in due course.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I would like to put on record my role as co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group.
When north Wales’s only prison, HMP Berwyn, partially opened on 28 February last year, its regime of skills development and rehabilitation was lauded as pioneering, yet we now learn that, in its first six months, 27 staff members left, and I am told by the Prison Officers Association that morale is at rock bottom. I understand that, in the early months, prisoners assaulted staff on nine occasions, and only one was referred to police. How will the Minister improve offenders’ rehabilitation when recruitment, retention and, critically, staff safety at HMP Berwyn are in crisis?

Rory Stewart: I am very happy to speak in detail with the hon. Lady, who has put an enormous amount of passion and energy into studying issues in prisons in Wales. We believe there are some very positive signs now at HMP Berwyn, but we can talk those through.  Recruitment figures have actually been very positive—we are ahead on the recruitment of 2,500 people across England and Wales—but I am very happy to sit down and talk about Berwyn in particular.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: While the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) was ploughing through her question, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) was doing his customary knee exercises, from which I hope he greatly profits. I call Mr Andrew Slaughter.

Andrew Slaughter: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Has the Secretary of State seen the investigation published at the weekend by The Sun into new allegations of misconduct by the west London coroner, including bullying, sexism and homophobic conduct towards staff? Despite previous findings of serious misconduct, three-year delays in issuing death certificates, secret inquests being held at night and important case papers being lost, he has been cleared by the Secretary of State to return to work. Will the Secretary of State meet west London MPs and council leaders to discuss this crisis?

David Gauke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who is responsible for coroners, will be happy to meet him.

Chris Ruane: The number and percentage of women given custodial sentences has dropped in many areas of the country. In north Wales,  the figure has increased by 57%. Will the Minister look into the reasons for this huge increase?

Phillip Lee: I am very happy to. Will the hon. Gentleman please send me the information?

Rachael Maskell: Some women in York have been taken to the family courts on multiple occasions by former partners. This process is clearly being used as a form of emotional abuse, and  is highly costly to constituents and the state. What steps is the Minister taking to recognise court abuse, and what actions will she take now?

Lucy Frazer: Using the court process to further any abuse is completely unacceptable, particularly in relation to domestic abuse. The court can already take actions if it thinks that there is abuse of process, by restricting litigants’ ability to continue with further applications and further claims. New family court rules were introduced in November to make sure that vulnerable court users get the support they need in courtrooms.

Lisa Cameron: Individuals with autism spectrum disorder are some of the most vulnerable inmates in prison and are often subject to bullying, abuse and victimisation, with high rates of suicide. What progress is being made on autism accreditation in prisons?

Rory Stewart: This is a hugely important issue. I would very much like to sit down with the hon. Lady, because the Scottish Prison Service has a lot that it can teach us. It is doing a very good job on many of these issues, and I think we can learn a great deal from it.

PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE PAYMENT

Peter Grant: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the recent ruling by the High Court over the judicial review on the application of personal independence payments to persons with mental health problems.

Esther McVey: After careful consideration, I took the decision not to appeal the High Court’s judgment on this case. I informed the House of my decision immediately by tabling a written statement on Friday last week. The written statement set out my decision and the steps that my Department will now take to implement that judgment, although I welcome coming to the House today in addition to that.
I repeat once again my commitment to implementing this judgment in the best interests of our claimants and through working closely with disabled people and key stakeholders over the coming months. The Department for Work and Pensions will undertake an exercise to go through all affected cases in receipt of PIP and all decisions made following the judgment in the MH case to identify anyone who might be entitled to more as a result of the judgment. We will then write to the individuals affected and all payments will be backdated to the effective date in each individual’s claim.
In accepting the outcome of the High Court judgment, the Department does not agree with some of the details in it. The 2017 amending regulations were introduced in response to an upper tribunal case that broadened the interpretation of eligibility for mobility 1—the ability to plan and follow a journey. Our intention has always been to deliver the original policy intent through clarifying how symptoms of overwhelming psychological distress should be assessed. We are not appealing the outcome of the recent High Court judgment to provide certainty to our claimants.
Our next steps will build on the positive work that the Government are already undertaking: spending on the main disability benefits—PIP, the disability living allowance and the attendance allowance—has risen by £4.2 billion since 2010 and real terms spending on disability benefits will be higher every year to 2020 than in 2010. The Government have commissioned two expert-led reviews and invested a record £11.6 billion in mental health services. Access to Work’s mental health support service has been expanded with a two-year trial of targeted support for apprentices with mental health conditions. We have also accepted all the recommendations in the independent review by Lord Stevenson and Paul Farmer, including establishing a framework for large employers to voluntarily report on mental health and disability within their organisation.
With regard to the next steps following this judgment, the DWP will write to those who may be entitled to a higher rate of PIP. Where relevant, all payments will be backdated to the effective date in each individual claim.
PIP is a modern, dynamic and fairer benefit than its predecessor, DLA, and focuses the most support on those who are experiencing the greatest barriers to living independently. At the core of PIP’s design is the principle that awards of the benefit should be made  according to the claimant’s overall level of need, regardless of whether they suffer from physical or non-physical conditions. The Government are committed to furthering rights and opportunities for all disabled people and we continue to spend over £50 billion a year to support people with disabilities and health conditions.

Peter Grant: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for attending the House today and welcome her to her recent appointment. It seems that Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions change with astonishing regularity, but the Government’s callous and chaotic attempt to attack the rights of the poor, sick and disabled continues unabated. Although the Secretary of State said that she is pleased to come to the House to make this statement, she did not take the two or three opportunities she had over the past few days to do so, without waiting for an urgent question. Instead, she waited for a month after the High Court decision and then submitted a written statement on a Friday morning, when she knew nobody would be here to read it.
The High Court has ruled yet again that the Government have been acting unlawfully in their incessant attack on the very people the DWP should be seeking to protect. We now know that up to 164,000 people will get higher disability payments—or, to put it another way, that the Government have unlawfully been seeking to withhold benefits from up to 164,000 people who are not only entitled to them but who need them if they are to have anything like the normal life that the more fortunate among us take for granted.
This is not the first time the Government have bene overturned in the courts. We have previously seen the courts ruling against the Government on the imposition of benefits sanctions, where the Government were acting unlawfully, and before that on the iniquitous bedroom tax. That one is particularly poignant for my constituents just now because the man who stood up to the DWP over the bedroom tax and won, Davie Nelson, a Glenrothes man through and through, sadly died very suddenly last week. His family and friends will be pleased that others are continuing the campaign for social justice that Davie fought so bravely.
The Secretary of State has promised that her Department will now seek to identify anyone who should be receiving higher benefits. My office has estimated, on the basis of preliminary constituency casework, that there could be 71 people in my constituency alone not getting the money they are entitled to. Will she update us on how many people she now thinks have been underpaid? How long will it take to carry out the review? How much longer will these people have to wait to receive the money that they rely on and which is rightfully and lawfully theirs? Will she explain why her Department is amassing such an appalling record of defeats in the courts? Does that not tell the Government something about how they are making these cuts to benefits? Finally, will she now commit to delivering a social security system whose fundamental principle is not to work down to a budget but to protect and respect the dignity of those who rely on it, and not continue to punish people for having disabilities?

Esther McVey: There have been changes in the DWP. Some people have come back, having previously worked here and seen what the changes were, and I am back here, several years later, and hence was probably a good person to say that we would not be appealing the court case.
On the timetable, I made the judgment just a week and a half after being made Secretary of State. It took up most of my time. It was a Friday—and could not have been any other time—because that was the deadline I had to meet for the legal judgment. At the same time, I made sure, following all protocol, that there was a written statement on exactly what had been done.
The benefit was always intended to be a dynamic benefit. Hon. Members on both sides of the House understood that DLA was focused on physical disabilities, and all parties decided there needed to be a more dynamic benefit that reflected invisible disabilities, which we all know are very difficult to assess. The extra money and support went into acknowledging that.
There has been massive change, and also massive understanding, in terms of what is going on. When I stood here all those years ago in 2013 talking about what the budget would be, people said we were cutting it. I explained the matter very clearly, though it fell on deaf ears, and I was often vilified. People still said it was being cut, but it was not. When I arrived, the budget was just over £13 billion, and it has gone up every year since, and will continue to go up. That is in real terms. Much of the vilification, therefore, was not only unnecessary but deeply untrue, and that again is why I welcome the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box to explain what is going on.
Changing benefits is not always easy. Expanding support is not always easy. We knew at the time we were taking on a very difficult change and that there would no doubt be legal challenges. When there are legal challenges, however, we must look at them, make a true and fair judgment and carry on along that path, and I believe that in this instance I made a fair judgment. Today, the Glasgow Herald welcomed the decision—although I accept that the piece in question picked on various other issues—and it was also welcomed by Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind. My hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work has met her Scottish counterpart; they, too, welcome the decision and look forward to establishing closer working relationships and making plans for its implementation.
I hope that what I have said explains what we have done, and I hope that what we have done is welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. If the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) would like to talk to me about a specific case or constituent, my door is open, and I will meet him.

Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post, and I welcome her knowledge in making this decision. In supporting her, I remind the House that it was our predecessor Labour Government who put off changes in disability living allowance deliberately before the election and that afterwards we were faced with the decision to make those necessary changes. More money is now spent on disability benefits year on year, and more people, including those with mental health conditions, will receive them. DLA never delivered that to those people before.

Esther McVey: I thank my right hon. Friend. He spent many years working on social issues and cases, and established the Centre for Social Justice. The change that he brought about was not just about changing the  benefits, but about reaching out to people who are sometimes left alone. Some of those people did want to be helped to get back into work. They did want to talk about their hopes and aspirations. There are now over 600,000 more disabled people in work, because they chose that path towards self-determination and the fulfilment of their ambitions and hopes.

Debbie Abrahams: Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).
Any disabled person who listened to what was said by the Secretary of State will have been gobsmacked by the suggestion that there is a commitment to disabled people. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has described the Government’s action as a “human catastrophe”. The cuts that they have wrought on disabled people are an absolute disgrace.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said when she raised a point of order yesterday, the Government sneaked out a written statement late on Friday, announcing that they would not appeal against the High Court judgment of 21 December, in effect reversing the emergency PIP regulations that they had introduced in February last year. Those regulations were introduced without a vote or a debate, despite two urgent questions and an emergency debate, and despite widespread concern about their impact. The Government’s own Social Security Advisory Committee was not consulted. I warned at the time:
“The move to undermine and subvert independent tribunal judgments is unprecedented, and ... marks very troubling behaviour by the Government on cases they lose that could weaken such social security tribunal judgments’ reach, influence and effectiveness in making independent decisions.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2017; Vol. 624, c. 145.]
I am pleased that the Secretary of State and her Department have finally seen sense, but there are a number of questions that the Secretary of State must answer—questions that have already been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. How many people does her Department estimate have been affected? How quickly will her Department be able to identify affected claimants, and by what process? Given the issues relating to letters from that Department, it is a little worrying if that is the only means.
How soon after identification will the Department make back payments? Will there be an appeal process for PIP claimants who are not contacted by the Department and who believe they should receive such payments? Will the Department compensate claimants who have fallen into debt and accrued interest charges? Will applicants be entitled to a reassessment if they were given the standard rate of the PIP mobility component after  the February 2017 changes to PIP regulations, when the cause of the claim was “psychological distress”?
Finally, just how much public money has been spent by the Department on lawyers and legal advice seeking to defend the indefensible in the initial tribunal and the more recent court case?
This sorry debacle should serve as a warning to the Government of the dangers of seeking to undermine and subvert the decisions of our independent judiciary and the House of Commons.

Esther McVey: Can we start the dialogue on a firm and factual footing, which I set out before, and dispel the myth about the spend on disabled people? The facts speak for themselves: in real terms, the money has gone up. In this place, we are supposed to have the definitive facts of an argument, so I seek to give those here.
This was not about a policy change; it was about implementing the correct regulation after a court case. It came about after taking advice from and working with experts in the field on how to help people with severe psychological disorders. It was about support by prompting and by aid and assistance; at the time, it was not deemed to be something for people with severe learning disabilities, who might want a constant companion. That was how the regulations were set down, after advice was sought on the best approach, because this is a tailor-made benefit. However, the judgment in the case went the other way. We will work with MIND and with charities and stakeholders in the field to implement this as quickly as possible, but it is not just about speed; it has to be right and effective and to work for the people it is made for. That will take some time, but we will do it as quickly as possible.
Up to 220,000 people could be affected. That is why we are taking the process very seriously. We as a Department will reach out to those people, once we know exactly what we are doing. I reiterate that, according to figures from 27 October, 66% of PIP recipients with mental health conditions get the enhanced daily living component, compared with 22% who received the highest DLA care component; and 31% of PIP recipients with mental health conditions get the enhanced mobility rate, compared with just 10% of DLA recipients. Those facts speak for themselves. We know that this is a highly emotive issue, but it would be helpful if all MPs when working with their constituents offered them the help and guidance they need, and not ramp up some of the rhetoric and incorrect information we have heard here.
Finally, I was asked about legal costs. The cost in these cases was £181,000, but a Department as big as the DWP expects the costs of court cases to be that high, and they are comparable with those of other Departments engaged in similar judicial review cases.

Heidi Allen: I am so pleased the new Secretary of State has decided to accept the court ruling, and I thank her very much indeed. As I and colleagues said last year, we should have listened to the message the courts were giving us. Accepting their ruling will be a significant step forward in achieving parity of esteem for mental and physical health. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which I am a member, is about to publish a report on PIP and employment and support allowance. Will the Secretary of State seriously consider our recommendations on how to improve both those benefits? We all want the same thing—the best possible support for people who need it.

Esther McVey: I thank my hon. Friend, who is a vocal champion of people with disabilities, as is every other Conservative Back Bencher—and Members in all parts of the House. That is why this is sometimes such an emotive issue—everybody wants to be heard. I will indeed listen to her and take on board the recommendations of the Select Committee.

Neil Gray: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important urgent question. I congratulate my hon. and assiduous Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) on securing it.
The High Court ruled that the UK Government’s PIP regulations were “blatantly discriminatory” against people with mental health impairments. That follows the damning report from the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which found “systematic violations” of disability rights. Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s acceptance of the High Court ruling—a position I hope the Government will adopt more regularly in response to High Court defeats on social security policy—I was worried by an aspect of her written statement, which was sneaked out on Friday. She said on Friday and again today that
“Although I and my Department accept the High Court’s judgment, we do not agree with some of the detail contained therein.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 30WS.]
Will she clarify that she will implement the ruling in full? Will she make an oral statement on the Floor of the House, so that we can consider whether the response follows the High Court ruling? Will she answer the pertinent questions put by my hon. Friend regarding the timescales—a matter she has not covered? Finally, in the light of the ruling and other external interventions, will the Government admit that their policies are causing harm and commit to widescale review of the social security system in the United Kingdom?

Esther McVey: We will implement the judgment in full, but we will work with stakeholders and charities to understand and implement what was said. When we said we did not agree with the detail, it was a reference to the language and terminology that went above and beyond a legal ruling and judgment, but we saw through that to the facts and that is why we decided not to appeal.
I reiterate that I am not the kind of person who sneaks anything out. I have come to this House and answered every question. I set out the timetable. The matter had to go to the Court for a decision on Friday. The House was not sitting by the time I made the decision, so I put out a written statement. I hope that all hon. Members understand that it is better to get a decision right than to rush just to answer in a different way. Nothing was sneaked out.
Again, I reiterate the support the Government give and have said they will give to people with mental health conditions. The Prime Minister has made that a key issue that she wants to deal with, and she and I came to that decision to do so.

Alex Burghart: I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s decision, which will benefit a lot of disabled people. We all know that DLA was a far worse benefit for people with mental health problems than PIP. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even before the ruling, far more disabled people were receiving PIP than had ever received DLA?

Esther McVey: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this subject and is also a member of the Work and Pensions Committee. He has given the correct facts. We as a compassionate Conservative Government will do as much as we can to help people who need our help.

Frank Field: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place and I welcome her statement. Given the size of the task before her, with up to 220,000 people affected, may I again press her to give some sort of timetable for meeting that objective? Might she start by writing to the oldest claimants first, and might she put a monthly report in the House of Commons Library on progress to that end?

Esther McVey: The right hon. Gentleman is another champion for these causes. As he suggests, this is a mammoth task, and I will be working with experts in the field and doing things as sympathetically and effectively as possible. I will listen to all the advice that he has offered me.

Frank Field: And can we have a monthly statement?

Esther McVey: I will do the best I can to adhere to the right hon. Gentleman’s requests.

Philip Davies: I very much support the Secretary of State’s decision, and I am sure that she is delighted that the Opposition parties called for an urgent question so that they could tell her how much they support her decision on the court case. Or at least I think that is what they were saying. I also very much welcome the fact that we are now spending far more money on people with disabilities than the last Labour Government did, which probably explains the anger with which the shadow Secretary of State gave her performance. Will my right hon. Friend look at measures to try to get the decision making on PIP right first time? In too many cases, the right decision is not made the first time, and I hope that she will look at that urgently, and early in her time in office.

Esther McVey: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for his comments. He always likes to see things in his own inimitable way, and he is quite right. Both sides of the House are meant to be supporting this decision, but listening to the tone and the noises coming from the Opposition Benches, it is difficult to believe that. He makes a fair point about getting the decisions right first time and helping the decision makers to get it right. There was an independent review—the Gray review—and we will be taking its advice on board.

Ruth George: I, too, welcome the right hon. Lady to her post. I also welcome the decision that she has made. Bearing in mind the fact that many disability benefit claimants with mental health issues struggle to get out of the house, does she share my concern and that of the Work and Pensions Committee about the great discrepancies between contractors and between regions? There are discrepancies relating to the number of people being allowed a home visit for their benefits assessments. Will she please review this, to ensure that those people can get the benefits they  deserve and not be sanctioned because they cannot leave their house?

Esther McVey: The hon. Lady has raised a good point about how some people are visited while others have to go in for assessment and support. That was part of the freedoms of contracting, so that we could get best practice. Were some people better seen at home? Were  other people better seen in their local community? We constantly gauge and value that, and we will continue to do so.

Justin Tomlinson: Building on this very positive announcement, we all need to do more to support people with mental health conditions, and one of the biggest challenges is identifying people with those conditions. The PIP process can play a crucial role in that. Will the Secretary of State therefore bring forward plans to enable us to signpost those identified for the additional targeted support that is available across all parts of the Government, so that they can get the maximum amount of help?

Esther McVey: That is another good offer of support and advice from our side of the House from someone who knows his brief very well. We will look at the suggestion that my hon. Friend has put forward.

Steve McCabe: How many staff in the Department for Work and Pensions will be directly deployed on the rectification process? I ask because the evidence is that the number of staff in the DWP used to complete any kind of task involving a complaint or a rectification is directly relevant to how long it takes them to complete the process.

Esther McVey: Again, we have to consider these key practical points. We are actively recruiting hundreds of staff for this at the moment.

Desmond Swayne: As for the comments from the United Nations, how do the figures that my right hon. Friend has given compare internationally?

Esther McVey: My right hon. Friend raises another good point. The UK is one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to supporting its disabled people. In the G7, only Germany spends more. We spend what is deemed appropriate and available, which is more than £50 billion. I reiterate that we are one of the most generous countries in the world.

Ben Lake: Vulnerable people with severe mental health problems in my constituency have had to resort to a distressing appeals process in order to secure the support they are entitled to. This is wholly inappropriate. Pursuant to the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), may I ask when we can expect to see some progress from her Department to ensure that individuals are assessed for psychological conditions by mental health clinicians in the first instance?

Esther McVey: We are constantly reviewing the numbers to support who is coming forward if we need further decisions or clarifications for people. That is part of the ongoing day-to-day process to make sure that we get this benefit right.

Richard Drax: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place. We are all right behind her, whatever some people might say. From my experience as an MP in South Dorset, I suspect that the main problem relating to people slipping through the net is  the lack of home visits. I agree with the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) on this point. I suspect that such visits are more expensive, but I think that they would save money in the longer term because the assessment would be more accurate. Will my right hon. Friend look into this, to ensure that we hit the targets smack on, first time?

Esther McVey: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and support. Anyone in need of a home visit can have a home visit, and I will be looking at the communications relating to this, because perhaps people, including MPs, do not know that. This is something else that we need to work on.

Chris Stephens: We on the DWP Select Committee heard some alarming evidence and unconvincing answers from contractors about the number of staff who had specialist knowledge of mental health. Can the Secretary of State confirm that she will take this up with the contractors and carry out a review of the assessment process?

Esther McVey: I have indeed got a date in the diary to be on a PIP decision-making process. I met the contractors last week. I had obviously done that when I was last in the House, but I need to be updated to see exactly what is going on. I have had meetings on this, but the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that there is nothing quite like going through the process myself.

Mary Robinson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. I recently visited my local jobcentre in Stockport and met the great work coaches there who are doing so much to help people back into work. Will she join me in congratulating them, and perhaps explain how this is going to help us in our quest to help a further 1 million people into work?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend and neighbour rightly acknowledges the work that the work coaches do in her constituency and right across the country. The aim of the Government in carrying out this transformation was to get a tailor-made benefit service, whether through PIP or universal credit, so that the work coaches know who they are dealing with and therefore how they can help and support them in the best possible ways. The Government should be proud of what they are aiming to do.

Stephen Timms: This was an ill-advised attempt to reduce the amount of benefit payable to people with mental health problems, and I am glad that it has been abandoned. Will the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that, in future, her Department complies with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010?

Esther McVey: The right hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable on this subject, and we spent hours debating these issues across the Dispatch Box when I was last in the House. He knows as well as I do that we always aim to fulfil all obligations. If we do not, this is what happens: we get a court case and we have to deal with the consequences. I hope that I have dealt with  them correctly today and received support across the House. I will not be seeking leave to appeal, and that is right on this occasion.

Michael Tomlinson: I, too, warmly welcome the Secretary of State to her post. I am visiting my local jobcentre in Poole on Friday, so will the Secretary of State set out how our new jobcentres will support my constituents and others across the country with mental health challenges into work?

Esther McVey: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), this is about tailor-made and flexible support. We are putting in place more training so that people understand mental health conditions, and we are giving our work coaches and mental health assistants as much support as possible. As I say, this is about tailor-made and flexible support.

Chi Onwurah: The Secretary of State talks about the unnecessary vilification of her policies, but her Government were responsible for the vilification of so many mentally disabled people by presenting them as applying for benefits to which they were not entitled. I have seen the misery that such decisions caused many of my constituents, including those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of sexual abuse. Will the Secretary of State now confirm the maximum amount of time that they will have to wait to have their cases reviewed?

Esther McVey: It is unfortunate when Opposition Members try to ratchet up the level of emotion in the Chamber, especially when the situation is as emotional as it is. Nobody has ever sought to vilify anyone, and we should get it on the record now that this is not about vilifying anybody—it is about the giving the right support to those who need it. Surely all of us want to focus resources and money on the most disabled people and on the disabled people who need that money. I hope that I can end on that note. The facts speak for themselves: we have spent more than Labour ever did.

Johnny Mercer: I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision. Does she agree that it is simply nonsense to suggest that the Government are not interested in this agenda? More money is going into the programme than ever. The life chances agenda, which has significantly challenged the welfare state that previously kept a lot of people out of work, is fundamentally changing our country, including communities such as Plymouth, for the better.

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend hits on an important point. The Conservative party and the law that it is bringing in are all about life chances. That is how we view the world. Social mobility, life chances, a foot on the ladder and a career ladder are what we aim to provide all the time.
This will sound like a bit of an advert, but I want to highlight the fact that the Minister for Disabled People holds PIP sessions that all MPs can attend. If anybody has anything that they want to bring to her, they can go to one of those sessions. The sessions take place regularly, and she is holding one today.

Gareth Snell: What we are hearing about today is a court judgment that found the Government’s policy wanting, but the Secretary of State has come to the House seeking plaudits for now not appealing that decision, and that is frankly unacceptable. While it is right for those who were not given the help and support that they needed to get a backdated payment, that payment does not remedy the trauma that they faced during the years when they did not have support. Will the Secretary of State offer an unequivocal apology from the Dispatch Box for the consequences of her Department’s policy? Whether intended or not, it was her Government’s decision that led to people struggling at home, and that is simply not right.

Esther McVey: That was another reason for making a written statement, as well as the time constraints and what we had to do to adhere to the legal ruling. I have not come here today for plaudits. I have come here to do what is right and to explain what is right. That is what I have done, and that is the key thing for all our constituents and the people who are watching this closely at home. We have made a decision. I believe that it has been accepted on both sides of the House, and we are going to get things right.

Peter Heaton-Jones: I warmly welcome this decision, and it is worth noting that this new Secretary of State made it after only eight working days in her role, which represents a decisive course of action. Is it not the case that the entire focus of the Department, which I know well, is on ensuring that those with mental disabilities and challenges have opportunities to access the workplace and lead independent lives? In making this decision, the Secretary of State has shown that that is her focus.

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend puts his point so eloquently that I do not think that I can add much to it, but I reiterate that this is about opportunity and allowing everyone to lead an independent life.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for securing this urgent question, but I also thank the Secretary of State for her response and promise of action. In my office, transfers from DLA to PIP occupy a large proportion of my staff’s time. For people with severe anxiety, depression and emotional and mental health issues, some of whom are suicidal, the system has pushed them to the very edge, even when there has been copious evidence and information from consultants, GPs and family members. I ask that the staff who process applications do so with more knowledge, more understanding and certainly more compassion.

Esther McVey: I said that the Minister for Disabled People holds meetings for MPs, but she does the same for caseworkers, so MPs’ staff can attend those sessions, meet the Minister and ask relevant questions.

Michael Fabricant: The shadow Secretary of State said that she was gobsmacked by my right hon. Friend’s response. I am gobsmacked by the vilification of my right hon. Friend on social media and by the threats from Opposition Members to string her up, which are more unacceptable. Just for clarification,  will she let the House know precisely by how much disability payments have risen since this Government came to power?

Esther McVey: I am glad that “gobsmacked” has become part of the language of the House. My hon. Friend is gobsmacked, but I was obviously greatly dismayed by the comments from the Opposition and by the personal attacks that I have suffered. However, I know that people make personal attacks only when they do not have workable policies to put forward, so that shows that the Opposition have no workable policies. We do not need to link politics with violence.
In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, the increase has been £4.2 billion.

Stephen Lloyd: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question, and I also thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for requesting it. The Government have decided not to appeal only now, after putting many claimants with mental health problems through a year of hell. Does the Secretary of State really believe that that was a kind or fair way of treating people with mental health issues?

Esther McVey: This is a key issue for the Government. The Prime Minister has made supporting people with mental health issues a key pledge, and we have put in an extra £11 billion. Coming to the House with this decision is a step in the right direction towards helping people as best we can.

Tom Pursglove: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s appointment, and my constituents, including those who come to my weekly advice surgeries, will welcome her announcement. Will she update the House on what steps are being taken to disseminate information about what all this means to local advice services so that they can best advise their clients about the next steps and the way forward?

Esther McVey: I thank my hon. Friend, because the point really is about the practicalities of getting this right. It is about engaging with stakeholders and charities. It is about working with our Department to get this right. Mind has welcomed the decision, as have other charities, and it is working with us. Once we have worked through that, obviously we will disseminate it through the whole system.

Neil Coyle: The Secretary of State says that the Department will now be identifying the 164,000 disabled people who were wrongly denied the help to which they are entitled. Her Department also recently announced it is scrapping a target it previously denied existed—that of upholding 80% of initial decisions. When will the DWP be contacting the 83,000 disabled people who were potentially wrongly denied help under that equally dodgy practice?

Esther McVey: We will do everything systematically and coherently. We will get to people affected by any incorrect decision as soon as possible.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post and congratulate her on her response to the urgent question. My constituents in Kettering would like to know whether there are more or fewer disabled people in work in 2018 than in 2010.

Esther McVey: There are considerably more people with disabilities in work than ever before, and particularly more than in 2010. That is true not just for people with disabilities but for all sorts of people, including young people and women. This Government have fundamentally achieved what we set out to do on life chances, social mobility and opportunities.

Lisa Cameron: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome both the judgment and the response. However, this process has been extremely stressful for my constituents, many of whom have been plunged into poverty and absolute despair, with their mental health problems exacerbated along the way. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that cognisance is taken of the opinion of professionals such as psychiatrists, who know what people are capable of doing and what support they need? How will she ensure that any further process does not add additional stress to those who have already been affected?

Esther McVey: As I have said in reply to many questions, we are actively recruiting more people, and we are doing more training on mental health conditions with our caseworkers. We have to make sure that we understand the judgment and that we work with partners to make sure that we can help people who come forward. I have heard the hon. Lady and, again, I would be happy to meet her if she would like to speak to me about anyone in particular.

Paul Scully: It must be through gritted teeth that the Opposition have to rely on citing the views on human rights of Saudi Arabian, Russian and Chinese members of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Meanwhile, Conservative Members do not want bluster; they want action and support. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the proportion of PIP recipients with mental health conditions who receive the higher rate of benefit compared with the figure under the DLA regime it replaced?

Esther McVey: I reiterate that 66% of PIP recipients with mental health conditions got the enhanced rate of the daily living component in October 2017, compared with 22% who were on the highest rate of the DLA care component in May 2013. Some 31% of PIP recipients with mental health conditions got the enhanced rate of the mobility component in October 2017, compared with 10% who received the higher rate of the DLA mobility component in May 2013. I hope that that is clear.

Chris Ruane: Two hundred sufferers of motor neurone disease have been interviewed by the Department in the past 18 months alone. In   addition to their physical disability, many will have mental ill health, which is increased by the stress and anxiety of the interviews. Some MND sufferers die within a year of diagnosis. Will the Secretary of State prioritise this group of sufferers when reviewing those cases?

Esther McVey: We will absolutely go via the people who are most in need.

Julian Knight: rose—

Jeremy Quin: rose—

John Bercow: I call Julian Knight.

Julian Knight: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had a one-in-two chance.
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to her place and welcome her talk of engagement. Will she commit to providing specific guidance to MPs’ offices and council contact centres at the earliest possible opportunity?

Esther McVey: That is another good point about how people are going to know about the changes. We will indeed take that suggestion forward.

Drew Hendry: Many disabled people in the highlands, particularly those with mental health conditions, are often refused PIP appeals, despite overwhelming evidence from their doctors. Does the Secretary of State agree it is wrong and discriminary—[Interruption.] Does she agree it is wrong—[Laughter]—to accept a private company’s decision over that of highly trained medical professionals who know their patients, and their conditions, well?

Esther McVey: I will keep to the word “discriminate”, and obviously we do not want to do that. Ultimately we will be making the decisions, but it is imperative that we get them right.

John Bercow: I call Jeremy Quin.

Jeremy Quin: And finally, Mr Speaker.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that PIP claimants, including those who will benefit from her decision, which I warmly welcome, will not be subject to the benefit cap in respect of these payments, and that payments will continue to be untaxed and, indeed, will rise by the rate of inflation?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is right that PIP is not subject to the benefit cap. A person will get PIP irrespective of whether they are in work. PIP is also not means-tested.

SKY/FOX UPDATE

Matthew Hancock: I am here in my capacity as the quasi-judicial decision maker on the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky to update the House on the interim report issued today by the Competition and Markets Authority.
The decision-making role is one that my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) discharged, having met her commitment, which was given many times in this House, to the greatest possible transparency and openness allowed by the process. Although I come fresh to this, I intend to follow that approach of being as open as possible while respecting the quasi-judicial nature of the decision.
As the House well knows, after the proposed acquisition was formally notified to the competition authorities last year, my right hon. Friend issued an intervention notice on media public interest grounds, namely of media plurality and the genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. That triggered a phase 1 investigation, requiring Ofcom to report on the specified public interest grounds and the CMA to report on jurisdiction.
Having received advice from Ofcom and the CMA, in September 2017, my right hon. Friend referred the proposed Sky/Fox merger to the CMA for a phase 2 investigation on both grounds. The original statutory deadline for the final report was 6 March 2018, but the CMA has today confirmed that it will be extended by  a further eight weeks and that the revised deadline is 1 May.
Once I have received the final report, I must come to a decision on whether the merger operates or may be expected to operate against the public interest, taking into account the specified public interest considerations of media plurality and genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. Following receipt of the final report, I will have 30 working days to publish my decision on the merger, so if I receive the CMA’s report on 1 May, I will have until 14 June to publish my decision.
To be clear, the publication today is of the CMA’s provisional findings. I have placed a copy in the Library. On the need for genuine commitment to broadcasting standards, the CMA provisionally finds that the merger is not expected to operate against the public interest. On media plurality grounds, the CMA’s provisional finding is that the merger may be against the public interest. It cites concerns that the transaction could reduce the independence of Sky News and would reduce the diversity of viewpoints available to, and consumed by, the public. It also raises concerns that the Murdoch family trust would have increased influence over public opinion and the political agenda.
The CMA has identified three remedy approaches and seeks views from interested parties on them. The remedy approaches are: first, to prohibit the transaction; secondly, to undertake structural remedies—to recommend either the spin-off of Sky News into a new company, or the divestiture of Sky News—and thirdly, behavioural remedies, which could include, for example, enhanced requirements relating to the editorial independence of Sky News.
The CMA recognises that the proposed acquisition of Fox by Disney could address concerns set out in the provisional findings. However, the uncertainty about whether, when or how that transaction will complete means that the CMA has also set out potential approaches that include introducing remedies that would fall away subject to the Disney-Fox transaction completing. The CMA has invited written representations on the provisional report’s findings, and the potential remedy approaches, with 21st Century Fox, Sky and other interested parties, before producing a final report.
As such, and given the quasi-judicial nature of the process, I hope that the House will understand that I cannot comment substantively on the provisional report and must wait for the final report before commenting. However, I am aware of the keen interest across the House in this important matter, and I know that Members will be closely scrutinising the CMA’s provisional findings and will have views on them. The CMA’s investigation will continue in the coming weeks. It has set out the process for making representations on the remedy options outlined, and on the provisional findings, with deadlines of 6 and 13 February respectively. I am sure that today’s debate will provide helpful context for that work.
What I am able to confirm today is that I will undertake to keep the House fully informed and to follow the right and proper process, considering all the evidence carefully when the time comes to make my decision on receipt of the CMA’s final report. I commend this statement to the House.

Tom Watson: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This proposed merger has gone on for longer than the Murdochs ever expected, and for that I want to pay tribute to the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). She could have done what the Murdoch family expected by clearing a path for the bid to go ahead, but she took her quasi-judicial responsibility seriously. I hope that the new Secretary of State will have as strong a regard for his responsibilities and for the public interest as his predecessor. I can assure him that if he does the right thing, he will have the support of the Opposition.
The CMA says that if the Sky/Fox merger went ahead as proposed, it would be against the public interest. It would result in the Murdoch family having too much control over news providers in the UK, and too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda. Does the Secretary of State accept that assessment?
The CMA says that it is not concerned about the proposed merger on broadcasting standards grounds, but in order to reach a proper assessment of that we need to look at corporate governance issues through part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. The Government have not yet published their response to the consultation on that, so can the Secretary of State tell the House when they intend to do so, and will he give us plenty of notice?
The previous Secretary of State said last June that she was minded not to accept undertakings offered by Fox and Sky that were intended to safeguard the editorial independence of Sky News, which they put forward to mitigate Ofcom’s media plurality concerns. Does the  new Secretary of State share his predecessor’s view of those undertakings? In November, Sky threatened to shut down Sky News if it proved to be a plurality obstacle in its bid. Will the Secretary of State reject any attempt by the Murdochs to blackmail him or the regulator by threatening Sky staff?
Just this weekend, “friends” of the Secretary of State were quoted in the newspapers as hinting at the outcome of a separate Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport review of gambling stakes and prizes. Will he undertake, in his quasi-judicial role, not to speak to his “friends” about his views on the takeover, and to discourage them from talking to the press about them?
When the Prime Minister took office 18 months ago, she stood on the steps of Downing Street and spoke directly to the country, saying:
“When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you”.
This ambitious, thrusting new Secretary of State now has the opportunity to put her words into action. He can stand up to the rich and powerful, stand up to the Murdochs and act in the public interest. I hope that he will do the right thing.

Matthew Hancock: I think that is the most cheerful response I have had from the hon. Gentleman, so I thank him for that. I will try to answer his questions in as much detail as possible. He asked a number of questions about the process. I am clear that we will follow due process; we will follow our statutory responsibilities and respect the quasi-judicial nature of the decision. My predecessor acted with great solidity and integrity in that regard, and I intend to do the same. In my previous role as Minister for Digital, I was outside the Chinese walls that the Department has on this subject, and therefore not involved in the internal discussions of the earlier stages. I will therefore follow the process by considering the CMA’s final report, once it is published, and all the relevant evidence and information, and then I will make the decision.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Leveson. Although we will no doubt have debates on the future sustainability of the press in the coming months, this is a separate process under existing law in which I have a quasi-judicial role; it is not intertwined with the debates that we will have on the primary legislation that was just passed by the other place and received its First Reading in this House this week. Those two questions are separate. The question before us today is one in which I will operate fully in my quasi-judicial role, as I am required to do  by law.

Damian Collins: The Secretary of State rightly raised Disney’s proposed takeover of Fox. If Disney wholly acquired Sky, Sky would of course be completely separate from the Murdoch family trust and in the ownership of a completely different company. However, does he believe that the Fox takeover of Sky must first be considered on its own merits, and that the future acquisition of Fox by Disney is a separate matter?

Matthew Hancock: The CMA’s report does address the fact that the proposed takeover by Disney is uncertain, and it sets out some details of potential options, given  that uncertainty. Anybody can make written representations in the next three weeks, based on that interim report, and I will consider the question when I see the full report in the months to come.

Brendan O'Hara: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I have said many times in this place that plurality and diversity are vital components of an independent media, and therefore I welcome today’s findings by the CMA, which have put on the record the valid concerns that many people have about the further concentration of media ownership in fewer and fewer hands. Although the CMA has said that the deal, as it currently stands, does not meet the public interest test, I am pleased that it references a number of possible remedies.
We have heard reports that the owners of Sky might look to close down Sky News if it becomes an impediment in the takeover deal, with the possible loss of 500 jobs. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will not allow employees of Sky to be used as pawns in any takeover when the final decision comes before him? If the takeover deal between Disney and Fox is likely to be green-lit, what impact will that have on his final decision, given Disney’s reported lack of interest in news broadcasting?

Matthew Hancock: It is a matter of law that while consideration of the proposal is ongoing, Sky News cannot be shut down in advance of a decision—I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He also made points about his views on the report published today; I shall reserve my judgement, see the final report and come to a conclusion based on that.

John Whittingdale: I welcome the Secretary of State’s keeping the House informed, but of course he currently has no role. When the CMA presents the final report and he comes to address this matter, will he bear it in mind that, to date, no regulator that has carried out any objective assessment has found any reason to block the merger on the grounds of commitment to broadcasting standards, and also that the greatest disaster that could befall the plurality of the media in this country would be for Sky News, which is after all a loss-making enterprise, although extremely good, to be closed by its new owner?

Matthew Hancock: Both those points are covered in the CMA report that was published today. If my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State wishes to make to the CMA any further comments like those he just made, he has three weeks in which to do so, after which I will consider the final report in full.

Ed Miliband: I warmly welcome the CMA’s strong set of findings on plurality. The CMA says explicitly that the deal would give the Murdoch family trust
“too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda.”
I pay warm tribute to the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), because we would not be here had she not had the guts to stand up and say that this matter should be referred to the CMA. We all owe her a debt of gratitude for having done that.
I very much hope that the new Secretary of State, whom I welcome to his place, follows his predecessor’s lead. He can do that by doing two things. First, it is important that he and the CMA should not allow a back-door attempt by the Murdochs to get control of Sky through the so-called remedies process. The simple way to stop the deal going ahead is to prohibit it, not to have some carve out or complicated process. Secondly, it is relevant to the context, so I think the Secretary of State was wrong to attack the other place for what it did on Leveson 2, which was promised by David Cameron, by me and by people from all parts of this House to the victims of phone hacking. If the Secretary of State is to stand up to the Murdochs, he has to allow Leveson 2 to go ahead to get at the truth, because that is what the victims were promised.

Matthew Hancock: It was enjoyable to hear a rendition of the right hon. Gentleman’s greatest hit on Leveson, but on the points relevant to today’s statement and the decision on this deal, I intend fully to exercise my quasi-judicial decision-making role by taking into account all relevant considerations, based on the CMA’s final report. It is in that straightforward and reasonable way that I intend to proceed.

Philip Davies: May I say to the Secretary of State that this is personal? This is basically about lefties—particularly the Labour party—who do not like Murdoch. If this involved any other media organisation, the shadow Secretary of State and the Labour party would have nothing at all to say. This is personal, and the Secretary of State should bear that in mind. After all, Ofcom is there to make sure that Sky News is impartial in its coverage, and I am sure that Ofcom can be trusted to deliver on that. In the light of this provisional judgment, can we now expect the CMA to call for the BBC to be broken up, given its dominance over news output in the UK?

Matthew Hancock: The report does go into detail on the different level of media dominance of different parties and sets that out clearly, but obviously I will take forward the views of the CMA’s final report when it is published. My hon. Friend—like the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale)—has the opportunity to let the CMA know his views in writing in the next three weeks.

Vincent Cable: As the CMA acknowledges the importance of Sky News to media plurality, as well as the risks and threat of a forced closure, might the Secretary of State conceivably have a role in facilitating white-knight investors?

Matthew Hancock: The most important thing that we in the Government can do is to execute on the law as it stands. The law has clear constraints and must be operated properly, above board, with integrity, in the quasi-judicial capacity that it sets out.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents in Kettering would like to know what Sky’s audience share is compared with the BBC and ITV.

Matthew Hancock: The BBC’s audience share is the biggest, ITN is second and Sky is smaller than that. The details of that are covered in the report, which I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituents will find illuminating.

Ruth Cadbury: I am honoured to have Sky and Sky News based in my constituency. Despite very serious instances of sexual and racial harassment at Fox News, the CMA has concluded that none of that, and none of the industrial-scale phone hacking at Murdoch’s UK papers, is relevant to broadcast standards. Does the Secretary of State really agree with the CMA and think that none of that is relevant to how companies that are completely controlled by the Murdochs behave?

Matthew Hancock: My position is not to agree or to disagree with the CMA; it is to consider the final report that the CMA produces in a couple of months’ time.

Ranil Jayawardena: Given the fact that Sky’s audience share is dwarfed by that of both the BBC and ITV, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are committed to the high-quality journalism and the world-class British broadcasting sector that we know and love?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) alluded to, the report does describe the market shares of the different broadcasters, including, of course, the BBC, which is the biggest. We are fully committed to ensuring a sustainable future for high-quality journalism. That is a policy question, and it is also a question of legislation that we will no doubt debate when the Data Protection Bill comes before the House, but it is separate from this decision, which is to be taken specifically within the rules and the law as it stands.

Jo Stevens: Five years after the phone hacking scandal broke, some civil cases regarding alleged criminality in the Murdoch empire are still ongoing. There will be victims who were very disappointed with the Secretary of State’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). The commencement of Leveson part 2 would be in the public interest, because it would finally reveal the full scale of hacking and the relationship between the press and the police. When will the Secretary of State follow the CMA’s lead and act to protect the public interest by commencing Leveson part 2?

Matthew Hancock: These two questions are separate. We have a consultation on the Leveson issues. In policy terms, I really care about making sure that we have a sustainable future for high-quality journalism, but that is separate from this quasi-judicial decision, which has to be done within the existing law, and that is how I will take it.

Rebecca Pow: I welcome the Secretary of State to his position and congratulate him on the transparency with which this process is being conducted. Does he agree that it was sensible to refer the merger of Sky and Fox to the CMA to avoid making it party political? Given the Government’s commitment to high standards in broadcasting, will the Secretary of State assure my constituents in Taunton Deane that the Government will continue to maintain high standards in broadcasting and journalism? I have a vested interest as a former broadcaster, but it is also what the people on the street want.

Matthew Hancock: I am not sure that the high-quality journalism of “Farming Today” will ever be the  same again without my hon. Friend. Undoubtedly, the  importance of high-quality journalism, with a sustainable business model to fund it and plurality around it, are incredibly important policy questions. We will no doubt debate that in future, but it is a commitment to which I stick firmly.

John Bercow: Of course, “Farming Today”’s loss has been Taunton Deane’s gain, as we are all conscious.

Ian Lucas: In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he will consider “all the evidence carefully” in his quasi-judicial role. How is it possible for him to consider all the evidence unless he goes forward with Leveson 2—thereby honouring the promise given by a Conservative Prime Minister—and hears the evidence that remains unheard so that he can properly judge the Murdochs’ capability and competence for governance?

Matthew Hancock: As I think I mentioned earlier, the question that the hon. Gentleman raises is not relevant to what we are discussing, because the latter is about exercising a quasi-judicial decision within the law as it stands. As I might have mentioned already, I intend to exercise that quasi-judicial decision-making role very clearly within the process as laid out in the law as  it stands.

POINT OF ORDER

John Bercow: We will move on, if there are no points of order. I did have an indication that there would be.

Gareth Snell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I think I have effectively solicited a point of order.

Gareth Snell: Thank you for the prompt, Mr Speaker.
Last Thursday, I was made aware by the office of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), that he was meeting the Transport Secretary in my constituency before heading to events in his own patch. Subsequently, it transpired that, while visiting Stoke-on-Trent, the Secretary of State held meetings in my constituency with the hon. Gentleman about matters that pertain to my constituency. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not tell me that information and I was not made aware of it by the Secretary of State himself. When I queried it with both their offices, I was told that no such meeting took place, yet the Twitter account of Stoke-on-Trent Conservatives has plastered pictures of the meeting across the social media website, saying how wonderful it was. How might I remedy the situation, Mr Speaker, and stop it happening again?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it. There is a sense in which it can credibly be said that he has found his own salvation. He asks me how he can, in a sense, achieve restitution for the situation from which he has been suffering—as he sees it. He has chosen to raise the matter in a point of order, and it has been registered with Members on the Treasury Bench. I confess that I am not familiar with the Twitter accounts concerned, still less have I surveyed them, but I will take it from him that this material is there.
All levity aside, perhaps I can reiterate what I said yesterday in response to a point of order from—if memory serves me correctly—the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who was deprecating an unannounced visit by a Cabinet Minister to his constituency on, as I understand it, public business, of which he had no advance notice. Members intending to visit their colleagues’ constituencies on public business, as opposed to going to some private engagement, should give the colleague whose constituency they are visiting reasonable notice of the intention. This is not a matter of law, it is not even a rule, but it is a very strong convention in this place and I think it is a courtesy that we should observe. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) will make further inquiries, but I trust that this exchange will be heard by the Secretary of State. I hope that it will not be necessary for Members repeatedly to raise these matters on the Floor of the House. It should be possible for colleagues to operate in a mature and courteous way.

PEDICABS (LONDON)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Paul Scully: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the regulation of the carrying of passengers in Greater London by pedal cycles and power-assisted pedal cycles for hire or reward; and for connected purposes.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), to her place—literally, as I see that she is taking her place now.
I am pleased that enabling the regulation of  pedicabs through this Bill has attracted the support of Members from all three parties represented in London in this place and from Members representing London constituencies. Support was so readily given from across the House that I was not even able to accommodate the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who has done much work in his role as chairman of the all-party group on taxis, on which I also serve. Although we do not always agree on the solutions for taxis and private hire vehicles, we both know that there is much that we can work on together to improve our hail and ride and pre-booked transport services in a way that is both fair to providers and protects customers.
Both Transport for London and the Department for Transport have been keen to see the simple change proposed in my Bill. The current and previous Mayors of London and Westminster Council also support the move. A group of leading businesses and organisations have come together to push for change under the umbrella of the Regulate Pedicabs Coalition, including the London Taxi Drivers’ Association, the Mayfair residents group, the Hippodrome Casino, the New West End Company, the London Chinatown Chinese Association, as well as many other residents associations and theatre groups representing interests across the west end, so I hope that I am pushing against an open door.
Pedicabs and pedal rickshaws are currently unregulated in London—and solely in London. As a result, there is no requirement for insurance, fares are not fixed or consistent, and neither vehicle condition nor driver quality are assessed. The behaviour of some pedicab operators causes problems for businesses, as they block highways, harass customers and cause serious risk to visitors and workers. In fact, they are the only form of public transport in the capital that is not regulated in any way.
One provider, London Pedicabs, estimates that there are around 1,400 pedicabs on the roads and pavements of London. It states on its website that it has pushed hard to get pedicabs fully licensed and accountable, so, in my mind, we have a great opportunity to make this happen in the coming months by the leave of this House and the other place.
I have said that pedicabs are not insured and that neither drivers nor their vehicles are regulated. Injuries to passengers have become frequent and lives may be at risk. One man told the Evening Standard in 2016 how he had been knocked out and left with a broken cheekbone here in London after being hit by a rickshaw whose  driver allegedly spat in the face of a member of staff in Covent Garden before pedalling away in a midnight hit and run.
I am not aware of any deaths of passengers in London as yet, but the fact that an off-duty soldier died after falling out of a pedicab in Edinburgh back in 2010 shows that it is very possible. Of course, accidents can happen whatever regime exists, but even the most basic checks will reduce the likelihood.
London is a global city with a positive international reputation. Some 20 million people come to our capital—my home town—every year. It vies with Bangkok each year to be the most visited city on the planet. Although London has so much to offer visitors, we should not take our tourism industry for granted. Making sure that visitors have a wonderful experience, feel safe, get value for money and have a great time is vital to keeping those figures up and ensuring that people share positive stories about their trips with their friends and keep coming back.
In 2016, an undercover filmmaker revealed examples of rickshaw drivers boasting about charging three Chinese tourists £350 each for a 35-minute ride, and about charging £200 to £300 to go the half mile from Oxford Circus to Piccadilly Circus. Groups of pedicabs frequently block streets, increasing traffic delays and pollution, while disrupting legitimate businesses in the west end. Many play loud music, and their drivers shout and swear and park in doorways and on pavements. Clearly not all do so, but, as on many occasions, there are enough to ruin the reputation of those simply trying to earn a living in a reasonable and conscientious way.
Many cities across the world have looked to regulate pedicabs. Despite different contexts, several themes recur, such as pedicabs’ legal status as bicycles, passenger safety concerns and fare transparency. New York and Rome failed in their attempts to introduce a blanket ban, but San Diego successfully introduced comprehensive regulation, which is what I am asking for today. San Diego City Council voted to strengthen regulations on pedicab operators following the death of a tourist in an accident. Pedicab operators there are required by law to display fares openly, and numbers are capped in high-traffic areas. They are banned from using metered parking spaces and drivers are required to carry proof of insurance and ensure that seatbelts are worn. Operators with criminal convictions are banned.
In 2016, the Government stated that they were concerned about passenger safety. They wanted to take dangerous pedicabs off the road and regulate pedicab drivers so that they are allowed to charge only reasonable fares and must meet minimum safety standards. They proposed that Transport for London would be responsible for creating detailed rules, such as setting out what is a reasonable amount to charge for a short journey, and that the licensing scheme would operate in a similar way to the rules for taxis and private hire vehicles. In setting out the approach that TfL would take, the Mayor of London said:
“Every Londoner and visitor to our city deserves a world-class service, whatever mode of transport they use. And this move will allow us to ensure that pedicabs must make big improvements to the way they operate. They are going to need to match up to important safety standards and we will be able to crack down on any attempts to charge rip-off fares.”
I happily disagree with Sadiq Khan on many issues, but he is absolutely on the money on this one.
The Bill would enable TfL to develop a regulation system, but does not prescribe what that system should be. However, there is every indication that TfL will conduct a background check of the driver and a safety inspection of vehicles, which are usually bought or rented from a few providers; place a cap on fares or rates charged; and set out sensible rules as to where and how drivers can park and tout for business.
Under the current law, pedicabs can be licensed as hackney carriages in every part of England and Wales apart from London. In a legal anomaly, pedicabs are treated as stage carriages in London, rather than licensed hackney carriages, under section 4 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869. The leading court case about pedicabs in London reaches the opposite conclusion to case law relating to the rest of England and Wales, and Mr Justice Pitchford, in Oddy v. Bugbugs Ltd, commented that, in his view,
“primary legislation will probably be required.”
That case was in 2003. The Greater London Assembly looked at the pedicab business as long ago as 2005. The 2014 Law Commission inquiry into taxi and private hire services made clear recommendations that pedicabs should be brought into a revised regulatory regime.
It is 15 years since the court case that brought this anomaly to our attention, and successive Governments have not found a suitable Bill to which to attach the proposed change, nor have we been able to get it through the private Members’ Bill maze. I am only too aware that Members can vote this Bill down, shout “Object”, or talk it out of time, but I hope that colleagues will understand that it simply irons out an anomaly and that it is supported across the political divide at every level of government. It will allow Transport for London to give consumers, whether they are Londoners or visitors, protection against excessive fares and safety protection through driver and vehicle checks, and to give others, including pedestrians, local businesses and nearby residents, some peace through reasonable and proportionate  regulation. Before they pipe up at any stage with any objection, however principled, I ask Members to consider the ordinary Londoner, who may scratch their head at the glacial progress we have made on a simple point that has near-unanimous agreement.
Some people want to ban pedicabs entirely, but looking around London in the open air on a rickshaw gives people a chance to see the city in a way that few other modes of transport allow—although the weather needs to be better than it is at present. Instead, we can help reputable pedicab drivers to develop a good, popular and sustainable business through sensible regulation.
Some Government Members may be concerned that it is a Labour Mayor who would oversee the design and implementation of the regulatory system, but I caution against taking a partisan view. London has a mature system of regulation for public and private hire, an experienced team to enforce transgression through fixed penalty notices and, in the most serious cases, an operating ban. We also have the London Assembly to scrutinise Transport for London and the Mayor, and all of its members are accountable to Londoners through the ballot box.
I hope that I can count on the support of this House to tidy up the law in scrapping this legal anomaly, and to tidy up London’s west end by ensuring that responsible rickshaw drivers ply for business by offering a safe and reasonably priced service that does not obstruct others from going about their business. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Paul Scully, Julia Lopez, Stephen Hammond, Bob Blackman, Robert Neill, Dr Matthew Offord, Zac Goldsmith, Tom Brake, Mike Gapes, Jim Fitzpatrick, Ms Karen Buck and Mr Virendra Sharma present the Bill.
Paul Scully accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed (Bill 154).

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS BILL

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee.
New Clause 1

Transition period

“(1) The Secretary of State shall, upon laying any statement under subsection (3A) of section 76A of the Energy Act 2013, seek to secure a transition period prior to the implementation of withdrawal from EURATOM of not less than two years.
(2) During a transition period under subsection (1), any—
(a) conditions under which the UK is a member of EURATOM before exit day shall continue to apply;
(b) obligations upon the UK which derive from membership of EURATOM before exit day shall continue to apply;
(c) structures for UK participation in EURATOM that are in place before exit day shall be maintained; and
(d) financial commitment to EURATOM made by the UK during the course of UK membership of EURATOM before exit day shall be honoured.”.—(Dr Whitehead.)
This new clause would aim to put in place a transition period, during which the UK could seek to secure an association to EURATOM
Brought up, and read the First time.

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Purpose—
“The purpose of this Act is to provide for a contingent arrangement for nuclear safeguarding arrangements under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the event that the United Kingdom no longer has membership or associate membership of EURATOM, to ensure that qualifying nuclear material, facilities or equipment are only available for use for civil activities (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere).”
This new clause would be a purpose clause, to establish that the provisions of the Bill are contingency arrangements if it proves impossible to establish an association with EURATOM after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
New clause 3—EURATOM: maintenance of nuclear safeguarding arrangements—
“No power to make regulations under this Act shall be exercised until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on his or her efforts to—
(a) seek associate membership of EURATOM, or
(b) otherwise maintain the implementation of nuclear safeguarding arrangements in the UK through EURATOM
after the UK has left the European Union.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on his or her efforts to maintain the implementation of nuclear safeguarding arrangements through EURATOM after the UK has left the EU.
Amendment 3, in clause 1,page2,line14, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement certifying that, in his or her opinion, it is no longer possible to retain membership of EURATOM or establish an  association with EURATOM that permits the operation of nuclear safeguarding activity through its administrative arrangements.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to certify, before making any regulations to provide for nuclear safeguarding regulations, that it was not possible to remain a member of EURATOM or have an association with it.
Amendment 2,page3,line3, at end insert—
“(11) Regulations may not be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing his strategy for seeking associate membership of EURATOM or setting out his reasons for choosing to make nuclear safeguards regulations under this Act rather than seeking associate membership of EURATOM.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers under Clause 1 to set out a nuclear safeguards regime through regulations until a report has been laid before each House setting out a strategy for seeking associate membership of EURATOM or explaining why the UK cannot seek associate membership of EURATOM.
Amendment 7, in clause 4,page5,line6, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until—
(a) the Government has laid before Parliament a strategy for maintaining those protections, safeguards, programmes for participation in nuclear research and development, and trading or other arrangements which will lapse as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from membership of and participation in EURATOM, and
(b) the strategy has been considered by both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament on the protection and trading arrangements that arise from membership of EURATOM, and his strategy for maintaining them prior to making regulations concerning nuclear safeguarding.

Alan Whitehead: The proposed new clauses and amendments appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who is the shadow Secretary of State, and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and others.
First and foremost, I want to set down a marker on new clause 2, because it represents the dividing line between us and the Government on membership, associate or otherwise, of Euratom. This purpose clause makes explicit that this is a contingency Bill. In other words, it is being enacted to deal with circumstances that may never arise—namely, that we as a country have no future association or membership with Euratom that would enable us to continue to reap the benefits of association or membership in a way that I think is almost universally agreed.
I think that it is agreed—the Minister has stated as much during the passage of this Bill—that Euratom has served well our purposes as a nuclear nation over the past 40 years, and nuclear safeguarding has worked very well in inspecting and representing our obligations to international agencies such as the International Atomic Energy Authority.
It is clear that our interests as a country would be best served by continuing our membership of Euratom, which was founded by a different treaty from that which brought about the EU. Indeed, during evidence to the Public Bill Committee, we heard strong arguments along those lines from eminent lawyers who had been called as witnesses. However, we appear to be in the position  of assuming that our future membership of Euratom is not possible, because essentially the Prime Minister, as a matter of choice, included exit from Euratom in her letter to the Commission informing it that we were invoking article 50.

Stephen Kerr: The treaty on Euratom membership is part of the set of treaties described in the treaty of Lisbon. Therefore, as we leave the European Union, we will, de facto, leave our membership of Euratom. It is as simple as that.

Alan Whitehead: I am afraid that it is not as simple as that. A considerable body of legal opinion states that, because Euratom was founded by a treaty other than the treaty of Rome—it was, in fact, founded before the EU came together—it can and should be dealt with separately. Although arrangements relating to association with and membership of various EU bodies have changed over time as a result of changes in EU regulations, that has not been the case with Euratom. The articles relating to associate membership and arrangements are identical to those that were in place when Euratom was founded. There is no case to answer as far as separate arrangements for Euratom are concerned.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend is making a strong case for associate membership. He will recall a Westminster Hall debate that I held only last year, during which there was broad consensus on the issue, including among Conservative Members. I think that the Minister was the only Member who did not agree. The only reasons the Government have given relate to the legal position and the European Court of Justice. If Conservative Members were not whipped, they would understand the logic of the very sensible new clause.

Alan Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for making that strong point. I recall that even the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) suggested during that debate that associate membership of Euratom could be effective in continuing those arrangements, which have served us so well over many years.

Rebecca Pow: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the International Atomic Energy Authority. The Government have made it clear that we will be seeking new arrangements with it and that they will follow exactly the same principles as the current arrangements—that is, the right to inspect civil nuclear facilities and to continue to receive all the safeguards and reports. We should be confident that this Government are going about the issue in a serious, sensible and meticulous way.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Lady makes the case for our new clause. If the Government are going about their business in a sensible and coherent way—I note the Secretary of State’s statement on 11 January on how the Government intend to go about conducting relationships with Euratom—it would be a good idea to place that procedure into the Bill, so that we can be clear about what we are about, what we want to achieve and how we will do so.
After all, it has been stated that this is a contingency Bill. We want to know what it is a contingency against and therefore how it should be framed in terms of what we should be doing in contemplating whether to bring it into operation. If we had either membership of Euratom or an associate form of membership, which might be fairly similar to that enjoyed currently by Ukraine but with a number of additional factors, this Bill would not be needed. The arrangements with Euratom would continue to be in place, rendering the Bill superfluous. We need to be clear about what we are debating.

James Heappey: The shadow Minister knows that he and I often agree on stuff, but I wonder whether today he might concede this point. At worst, his new clauses would merely render the Bill superfluous if we manage to achieve associate membership of Euratom, but at best we are providing the contingency plan that gives industry the certainty that it says that it so much wants. The Bill is therefore relevant and necessary in that sense, even if it may ultimately prove to be superfluous because we achieve Euratom membership.

Alan Whitehead: Yes, indeed. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I are going to agree substantially on this. We regard the Bill as necessary in the context of the possibility that, after Brexit, no arrangements can be brought about with Euratom, either associate membership or full membership. The Bill will then ensure that the nuclear industry is clear about its future and that the arrangements for our international obligations can be properly carried out in the absence of those arrangements. We have indeed been constructive and helpful during the Bill’s whole passage through Parliament. However, that does not detract from our thinking that a number of its procedural elements should be strengthened in relation to what we do while it is gestating and coming to potential fruition after the point at which the things that we are doing may not have had any success.
The hon. Gentleman will see that in some of our amendments we are also trying to make sure that Parliament is fully informed of what processes are under way while we get to the position that the Bill could, or could not, come into operation. That is important for Parliament’s sake. After all, we are in new territory with regard to this Bill, and we therefore have to do a number of new things in legislation that fit the bill for our future arrangements. That is essentially the beginning and end of what we are trying to do through this group of amendments.

Richard Graham: I am puzzled why new clause 1 is necessary. All its ingredients are issues that form part of the transition negotiations that our country is going through with the European Commission. It therefore seems bizarre to try to legislate that
“conditions under which the UK is a member of EURATOM before exit day shall continue to apply”
during the transition. On that basis, we would be legislating for all sorts of things that form part of the negotiations to continue during the transition. What would the hon. Gentleman say to that?

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman has slightly got ahead of me, because I started by talking about new clause 2, and I am about to start talking about new clause 1. He thinks that new clause 1 may be superfluous.  I would suggest that because this Bill is about procedure as much as fact, the new clause sets out a procedure that we need to undertake in the event of certain things not happening, and it is important that a number of those possible events are covered in the Bill. Should it not prove possible to remain a member of Euratom, for various reasons, it is important to consider the idea of a transition period after which we would then be in a position to fully carry out our obligations to the IAEA and other agencies separate from Euratom. That, indeed, is what the Bill is essentially trying to bring about. The Bill is predicated on the notion that membership or association with Euratom will not be possible, and it is therefore necessary to recreate the arrangements for nuclear safeguarding that have served us so well in a solely domestic form and thereby enabled us to negotiate separate voluntary arrangements with the IAEA and, indeed, separate bilateral agreements with a number of other countries, including the United States, Australia, Japan, and Canada.
The proposition that the Bill is prepared on a contingency basis is not something that the Opposition have made up. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State stated explicitly that
“the Bill has been prepared on a contingency basis. The discussions around our continued arrangements with Euratom and with the rest of the European Union have not been concluded, but it is right to put in place in good time any commitments that are needed in primary legislation. Euratom has served the United Kingdom and our nuclear industries well, so we want to see maximum continuity of those arrangements.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 617.]
However, this central point regarding the Bill is not stated within it. That is why it is so important to have a purpose clause, and that is what new clause 2 does. It provides that the Bill is operational only in the event that other arrangements are impossible to achieve.

Rachel Maclean: I accept that there was a vast amount of legal argument on our membership, or not, of Euratom. Indeed, it is not a simple point. However, we have now triggered our leaving Euratom. The treaties are uniquely joined, so it is a fact that we have left Euratom and will no longer be members. As we go forward with negotiations, putting the word “contingent” into the Bill would create uncertainty for our partners in the EU, given that the negotiations are two-sided. Those negotiations have yet to progress, so we need this Bill to be a clear signal or statement to our EU partners to achieve what we want. I fear that having the word “contingent” in the Bill will muddy the waters in our negotiations with our partners. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Alan Whitehead: I would have thought that the Bill, in whatever form it eventually emerges, demonstrates the opposite. Yes, there are a number of negotiations to be undertaken. We do not yet know the results of those negotiations. We have not left Euratom, which, it is generally agreed, has served our purposes very well. The new clause would enable us to signal, in the event of all those negotiations not working, that we are nevertheless still able to fulfil our obligations to the IAEA and to show it that we have a regime in place that does the business with regard to nuclear safeguarding from the  point of view of the IAEA’s concerns. Putting forward this Bill as a contingency measure, as the Secretary of State said was the case, is important in the uncertain position we are in at the moment. Nevertheless, we will need certainty, over a relatively short period, with the bodies that are responsible for policing and organising the nuclear non-proliferation treaties and the whole arrangements relating to nuclear safeguarding. I think, if I may say so, that that is the right way to do it as far as putting a Bill before the House is concerned. The Opposition do not dispute that: we think it is right to have the Bill as a contingency. Our concern, however, is whether there are sufficient elements to the process part of the Bill to ensure that it works as well as it could. That is really the point of difference on the Bill at the moment.

Richard Graham: The hon. Gentleman knows that this is incredibly important to him and several of his colleagues, and it is incredibly important to me, with EDF Energy’s operational headquarters for nuclear in my constituency and Horizon just down the road, so we are all coming from the same point. His specific proposal—I am talking about new clause 1 again—is very specific. It even mentions a period of two years, although the transition period that is being negotiated may well come to an end at the end of 2020. In effect, he is asking the Government to legislate on something over which they do not have control. Surely the better approach is to plan for the contingency, as he has already agreed, and recognise that the other elements—Euratom and other agencies—are all subject to a negotiation that this House cannot, by its nature, control.

Alan Whitehead: That is a little strange in that the Prime Minister referred to transition periods for the overall EU negotiations in her Florence speech, and the Secretary of State did so strongly in his written statement on 11 January. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be assured, as far as the nuclear industry is concerned, that there will be a seamless transition at the point at which we are no longer a member of Euratom, I would have thought he ought to be strongly in favour of aspiring to a transition period. As he knows and we know, the process of recreating in the UK all the things that have been done by Euratom for 40 years—we will discuss that later—will be extremely difficult, lengthy and problematic. It will certainly, in the opinion of many people, be extremely difficult to achieve in the period ahead if we corral those negotiations and are to complete them by March 2019. If he thought about it for a moment, he would recognise that the last thing we could conceivably want is a period of, in effect, nuclear shutdown, or of defaulting on our international obligations because we are not ready to carry them out on Brexit. That is why a transition period may be so important.

Richard Graham: Yes, of course we all want a transition period, which is precisely a part of the negotiations. What I struggle to understand is that the scenario the hon. Gentleman describes is in effect not within our control. The transition we are seeking is being negotiated—in fact, the Minister and other Front Benchers have made it absolutely clear several times that we want to continue the relationship with Euratom as deeply as possible—but I cannot see the need, in a legislative context, for his proposed new clause 1. In fact, I do not believe it would be possible for any Government conceivably to agree to it.

Alan Whitehead: I repeat my suggestion that, because the Bill is about process as much as content, it is important that it is guided by the sort of considerations we want to take place in order to achieve, as we are all agreed, the best outcome—[Interruption.] Indeed, yes, the best outcome. We must make sure that the negotiations not only proceed with the best outcome in mind, but cover the fact that it may be the case—again, this is out of our control—that if we stick to a position, as far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned, in which everything essentially stops in March 2019, that would be just catastrophic for our nuclear industry and our international nuclear safeguarding obligations. We must get this right, and we must have continuity of arrangements inside or outside Euratom. It is in those circumstances that a transition period is suggested.
The arrangements for the founding of Euratom and its articles suggest that a period of transition for negotiating our way out of Euratom may not be identical to the period for the arrangements for negotiating our way out of the EU as a whole. It is quite possible to conceive the circumstances in which we do not have a transition period beyond March 2019 for negotiating our general withdrawal from the EU, but we do have a transition period for negotiating our way out of Euratom. It is at the least strongly arguable that that may be the case in the future, and it is another reason why such a provision should be in the Bill.

Trudy Harrison: I feel I must pull up the hon. Gentleman because he has twice referred to Euratom having been around for 40 years, but it began in 1957. It was born out of the civil nuclear industry that began in my constituency of Copeland when Calder Hall was first constructed. I thought that I should made it clear that this was from Britain and by Britain back in 1957. We have actually had it for 70 years, although there was the merger in 1967.

Alan Whitehead: I was referring to the length of time that we have been a member of Euratom, not the length of time that Euratom has been around. Indeed, the hon. Lady will know that when Euratom was founded, the UK was not a member of it. I am sure she will also know that the founders of Euratom, particularly one of them—Mr Spaak—wrote a substantial report at the time of the founding of Euratom that strongly envisaged, setting out in chapter and verse, how an associate relationship of Euratom with the UK could come about. The arrangements that Mr Spaak considered in the report for associate membership are identical to those that exist today. I thank the hon. Lady for reminding us that Euratom has been around a lot longer than the period during which the UK’s relationship with Euratom has existed, but I am sure she will agree that even at the outset of Euratom, an association with the UK was envisaged before the UK joined to facilitate nuclear exchange, nuclear development and—although the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was not around at the time—joint endeavours in civil and defence nuclear work.
I fear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have tested the patience of the House, particularly, given the number of interventions I have taken, because of the necessity of ensuring that I responded to them fully. I will end by telling the House that we need to remember that this Bill covers just one aspect of our relationship with  Euratom over the period during which we have been a member of it. Our relationship with Euratom also includes participation in nuclear research, the transportation of nuclear materials, the development of nuclear arrangements, the trading of nuclear materials and a number of other arrangements, all of which will lapse on our exit from participation in Euratom and all of which will need to be secured for the future. They are not the subject of the Bill, but they will have to be dealt with at some stage if we are not to have a close association with Euratom after Brexit. Amendment 7 would provide for at least an understanding that we will move forward to secure working arrangements for a future outside Euratom, not just making provision for our treaty obligations concerning nuclear safeguarding.
The Opposition think that the suite of connected amendments to the Bill will strengthen it enormously so that it is a fully fit-for-purpose contingency arrangement. I therefore commend these new clauses and amendments to the House.

Trudy Harrison: New clause 1 concerns me, because it seems to me to be a delaying tactic. As I have mentioned, Euratom and the IAEA were really formed in 1957, when Calder Hall was built in my constituency. There are now 70-something businesses operating in the nuclear industry in my constituency alone. I have spoken to each and every one of them, as well as to Sellafield, the Low Level Waste Repository and the National Nuclear Laboratory. They all say that it is absolutely critical that we get on with the job swiftly and provide certainty so that when we leave the European Union on 29 March 2019, we know exactly where we are.
I come back to the point that Euratom was formed in 1957, and I find it somewhat disappointing that Opposition Members are not crediting our country with the ability to do what is necessary. I have been reassured by the Minister on several occasions about the timescales, and about the process that is already in place for recruiting new safeguards inspectors to the Office for Nuclear Regulation. There are clear synergies inherent in having the ONR, which is the overarching umbrella organisation, working on safeguarding, security and safety.
When it comes to the transition, the Prime Minister has already said that there will be a transition arrangement after we leave the European Union on 29 March 2019. Therefore, the most important thing is to get on with the job, and the Bill enables us to do just that.

Stephen Kerr: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the new clause, great uncertainty is built into the very thing—the contingency—that was intended to give certainty to people such as those in her constituency?

Trudy Harrison: That is exactly my point. This is about certainty and getting on with the job. Not having the Bill in place would be absolutely catastrophic for my constituency and the whole county of Cumbria.

Rachel Reeves: I know that the hon. Lady cares hugely about this issue, because it matters a great deal for her constituency. She and I have been in meetings with the Office for Nuclear Regulation, in which it has said very clearly that it will not be able to meet Euratom standards for safety inspections by March  2019. Indeed, even to meet IAEA standards will be very challenging. Does she not agree that new clause 1 would provide certainty, rather than the other way around, because it would ensure that in March 2019 we were in a transition period in which we could still rely on Euratom to perform the inspections that are so crucial in her constituency?

Trudy Harrison: It is not just my constituency, though; this is about the whole country. Today, more than 20% of our electricity is provided by nuclear power stations. The hon. Lady is not quite correct. My memory of the meeting she mentions is that we were told we would have sufficient aspects in place to be able to have the regime, there or thereabouts, to continue with our existing—[Interruption.]

Rachel Maclean: As the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) will know, Dr Golshan said in evidence to the Select Committee:
“My current project plan is that we establish a regime that intends to meet UK international obligations when we leave”.
That is achievable. She said that there were challenges, but not that they were insurmountable. She added that she intended to
“build upon that to achieve a system that is equivalent to Euratom.”
So my hon. Friend is correct.

Trudy Harrison: I thank my hon. Friend. It is important that we hold the Minister and the Department to account, and that we focus on the critical path of recruiting the right number of staff into the ONR and ensuring that the regime is in place when we leave. We need to get on with the job, and the 70-something businesses in my constituency absolutely want us to do that.

Alex Norris: The hon. Lady and I were both in the evidence-gathering sitting of the Bill Committee, in which Dr Golshan said that
“we will not be able to replicate Euratom standards on day one.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 7, Q9.]
Is this perhaps a matter of fact, rather than a question of confidence in Britain? In taking this course of action without the safeguard that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has proposed, we will leave ourselves without the coverage that we need.

Trudy Harrison: I have already said that I believe the transition period will happen, as the Prime Minister has indicated. New clause 1 is a delaying tactic, and that is absolutely not what the industry needs. We need certainty, and we need it today. I am pleased that the Department is already acting to recruit to the ONR safeguarding inspectors, who will also have responsibility for safety and security. That seems to me to provide vital synergies of shared knowledge and shared experience across the board in the nuclear sector.

Albert Owen: I want to speak briefly in support of new clause 1. We have debated whether there will be negotiations during the transition period, but I hope that the Minister will respond to this question when he winds up: does he intend to negotiate associate membership  of Euratom? We are asking for associate membership, but we have been given no clear idea of whether he intends to seek such membership. We all want the safeguards to be in place from day one. Negotiating over Euratom standards is not in our gift, but we now have in place the highest standards in the world and co-operation with other world leaders.

Stephen Kerr: Having sat through a number of evidence sessions with me, as a fellow member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Gentleman well knows that there is no such thing as associate membership of Euratom. The Minister has repeatedly said that the Government intend to seek some form of close association with Euratom—I do not want to dwell on the semantics, but that is obviously a different thing—and to maintain a continuity of relationship with it. The new clause is therefore totally unnecessary, given the Prime Minister’s commitment to a two-year implementation period.

Albert Owen: I often agree with the hon. Gentleman in the Committee, but I think that he is completely wrong on that point. There is such a thing as associate membership—of Euratom, and of the European Union—and there are different levels of membership.

Stephen Kerr: indicated dissent.

Albert Owen: Yes, there is. We need to negotiate from a position of clarity and strength, and I do not see us doing so. Without the proposed commitment in the Bill, I do not see the Government saying that they intend to go for third-party or associate membership of Euratom. We have not even seen the legal opinion that the Government were given about the need to leave Euratom in the first place. I support the need for nuclear safeguarding, and I will support the Bill on Third Reading, but new clause 1 is sensible, because it suggests that the Government should approach Euratom members and ask for associate membership, to give us the continuity and certainty that we want.

Ben Bradley: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants continuity and certainty, but can he not understand the difficulty involved in writing into the Bill the outcome of negotiations that have not yet happened? How can Parliament effectively write into law that we are going to have a transitional period when the negotiations have not yet happened?

Albert Owen: The Government say that we need a transitional period for EU withdrawal, and it is obvious to me that we also need one for Euratom. The Government have said that we need to leave Euratom at the same time as we leave the European Union, but I stress again—I hope that the Minister will clarify the position—that nobody other than the Government has seen the legal advice that tells us that we need to exit Euratom. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) was absolutely right that to say that there is universal support for the idea of our having associate membership. I have not met anyone who works in the industry who says that we should move away from Euratom. If we do, they—the workers; Prospect, the union; many of the experts who gave evidence to us; and the Nuclear Industry Association, which is the  umbrella body—feel that we should have associate membership. The new clause therefore speaks on behalf of the industry in the first instance, and we as legislators should listen to what the industry is saying; we should not listen to the Government’s ideological grounds. The only reason why the Government want to leave Euratom is that they do not want to be under the European Court of Justice—that is the crux of it.

James Heappey: The hon. Gentleman, like me, will have received the briefing from the Nuclear Industry Association. Paragraph 5, on legal implications, clearly says that the treaties are entwined—that is the EU’s position and the UK Government’s position—and that it is not possible to remain a member of Euratom while leaving the EU.

Albert Owen: Well, let us clear this up now. I invite the Minister to say on behalf of the Government whether it is his intention—or their intention, if he is not in his post at the time—to negotiate associate membership. Yes or no? Otherwise, we are just guessing that the Government will negotiate some form of associate or third-party membership. I need to know these things from the Government, because we do not have anything in front of us. What we have today is a group of new clauses and amendments that would give us the certainty that we need. The industry is crying out for that, so I want to hear from the Minister.

Richard Graham: rose—

Albert Owen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman cannot speak on behalf of the Minister, but I will be interested to hear what he has to say.

Richard Graham: It strikes me as bizarre that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are taking their current line. I can only assume that that is either because they want to try to make the political point that the Government and the Conservative party do not want to have a future relationship with Euratom, which is clearly wrong—the Minister will confirm that when he speaks—or because the hon. Gentleman wants to score a political point with an industry that I know is dear to his heart by suggesting that, somehow, he is being more supportive by trying to write into law something that cannot be written into law. What is needed today—we will hear this from the Minister—is absolute confirmation of the Government’s intention to continue to have as close a relationship with Euratom as possible. That is what will be negotiated. It cannot be legislated for, otherwise we would do the same thing for all the many other organisations in Europe with which we might want to have a future relationship. All of that will be covered in the transition talks in Brussels.

Albert Owen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows me quite well, and I do not think he would accuse me of scoring political points. I have said consistently since before the Bill was introduced that we need clarity, whether we have full membership of Euratom, associate membership, or a third-party agreement.

Richard Harrington: rose—

Albert Owen: At this stage, I do not know what will happen, but I am going to find out from the Minister now.

Richard Harrington: I must apologise for my hesitancy when the hon. Gentleman asked me a question. I was not sure whether I was allowed to intervene on him, so I had intended to reply in my speech. Just to make matters clear, however, it is a statement of fact that the Government have served the article 50 notice to leave Euratom, the argument being that the two treaties were so interleaved that we had to. Secondly, there is no such thing as associate membership. Some countries have agreements on certain matters—associate membership on research and development, for example, in the case of Ukraine—but there is no legal category of associate membership. Thirdly, the Government intend to seek as close an association with Euratom as is possible. If it is acceptable to the hon. Gentleman—I attended his Westminster Hall debate, and I have listened very carefully to what he has said today—I will continue my remarks at the end of this debate.

Albert Owen: I am grateful, because that is helpful, but there is associate membership—it is just in different sections, whether that is research and development or various other—[Laughter.] There is. Conservative Members laugh, but when we had a debate in Westminster Hall, both sides were in agreement that we needed to strengthen our relationship through an associate or alternative membership.

Rachel Reeves: Like other hon. Members, my hon. Friend has a close constituency interest in this issue. Ukraine has associate membership for the research and development programme. One thing my hon. Friend and I are particularly interested in is whether we are seeking to have what Ukraine has: associate membership specifically for research and development.

Albert Owen: That is an important point. However, let me repeat that it is not Labour Back Benchers who are asking for this; it is the industry itself. We need to listen to the industry. Its members are not stupid. They know the technical and legal differences between associate membership and part-associate membership. What they want is certainty. If someone is in a position of strength, they do not go into negotiations, one against the rest, and say, “What are you going to give us?” We have to go to the negotiations with a firm belief that we want a strong associate membership, but I have not heard the Government say that, even in the Minister’s intervention.

James Heappey: I think that we are all pulling in the same direction, but we need to be careful about the language. There is not an on-the-shelf associate membership that we can just pick up and run with. There are associated countries, and there are countries that have associate arrangements, but those are bespoke, and thus far all of them have required the free movement of people and a contribution to the EU budget. It is therefore likely that whatever our associated membership might be, it will be different from that of countries that already have an associated membership. However, those countries are not “associate members”, in the sense that there is an associate membership class.

Albert Owen: I think the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me, but we do not know our position or what our starting point is.
I would like to hear from the Minister—he will have enough time—that the British Government, on behalf of the nuclear industry, are looking for certainty. To say that they are looking for something as close as associate membership is not good enough. Are we looking for a specific British agreement with the rest of Euratom that gives us the same certainty as we have now? If so, we should support the new clause, because it strengthens the hand of the Government, rather than weakens it.
We should look at the comparison with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and phase 1, at the 11th hour waiting for the Irish to reach some sort of agreement. We cannot do that with Euratom and nuclear, because of its nature. Let us be absolutely firm. We are all pulling in the same direction. We want the best for the British nuclear industry. The nuclear industry wants an associate membership, so let us fight for it.

Ranil Jayawardena: Although I have not spoken on the Bill to date, I have been following its progress from afar. I rise, unsurprisingly perhaps, in opposition to the proposals that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead). As his county colleague, I have a great deal of time for him, but on this occasion I have to say, with regret, that I believe that the measures would delay the implementation of the vital nuclear safeguarding measures that are facilitated by the Bill and extend lobbying for associate membership of Euratom.
Notwithstanding the uncertainty, instability and safeguarding risks that these new clauses and amendments implicitly condone, the association they appear to grasp at seems to be ideologically driven. Those who still worship membership of the customs union or the single market above all else should see the impossible implications of the measures.
Euratom, which was established by the Euratom treaty, as we have already heard, is uniquely joined to the European Union. It has the same membership. Its budget is part of the general budget of the EU. Importantly, it also makes use of the same institutions and entities: the Commission, the Council and, contrary to everything that we voted leave for—to take back control—the European Court of Justice. That is why this Bill, which will create our own version of things, is so crucial. Providing certainty as we leave is crucial, whatever the deal.
I note that the measures seek some association, but that is no silver bullet. As we have heard already, there is no such thing as associate membership, and hon. Members do not have to trust me on that. If we cannot trust the views of a former president of the Union of European Federalists, who can we trust? I speak, of course, of the former Liberal Democrat MEP, Andrew Duff, and he wrote:
“Euratom is therefore a fundamental building block of the European Union and not an accessory. It cannot be separated out from the rest of the Union. Joining the EU means joining Euratom; leaving the EU means leaving Euratom…There is no such thing as associate membership of Euratom.”

Layla Moran: I simply say that that is not the Liberal Democrat party’s position, even though Andrew Duff may indeed at one point have been a Liberal Democrat MEP.

Ranil Jayawardena: My life is greatly enhanced by that clarification. Let me turn to another source that the hon. Lady might put greater trust in—Professor David Phinnemore of Queen’s University Belfast. He agreed with the former Liberal Democrat MEP:
“Andrew Duff has been quick to point out, correctly, that there is in fact no such thing as ‘associate membership’ of Euratom or, indeed, of the EU for that matter. Non-member states can only be ‘associates’ of the EU.”
That is an academic’s view, as well as an MEP’s view.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), in an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), considered the notion of associated country status. Switzerland has associated country status. That is different from associate membership; it covers only research and development, and as my hon. Friend made clear, it is contingent on free movement. People in this country have said in a referendum that free movement must be controlled. Given the impossibility of the deal that the new clauses seek time to negotiate—to say nothing of its undesirability—it is pure folly to mandate years of uncertainty in a nuclear safeguarding transition period. I contend, rather, that the safeguards, inspections of nuclear facilities and monitoring that the amendments purport to support would be harmed more by a safeguarding transition period—especially since, once we have left the European Union, our Euratom membership cannot apply—than by moving forward immediately to new safeguards.

Albert Owen: Is the hon. Gentleman honestly telling the House that the British public do not want experts from other countries to move freely in the nuclear industry? We are talking about not just nuclear installations but research centres in this country that need international co-operation.

Ranil Jayawardena: Although I like the hon. Gentleman very much and value his contributions to the House, I think he is missing the point and trying to undermine what the British people have clearly told us politicians. It is uncontrolled immigration that they seek to remedy.

Ed Vaizey: I hate to rise to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the British people did not vote to leave Euratom. It is a separate treaty and it was not on the ballot paper. We are aware that we are leaving Euratom because of a technicality. I am also aware that if the Government Front-Bench team could wave a magic wand, they would remain in Euratom. Can we please not wrap up our departure from Euratom into some kind of Brexit dream of sticking it to the continent? We want free movement of our nuclear workers, not least because we are building a multibillion-pound nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.

Ranil Jayawardena: In disagreeing with me, my right hon. Friend has made my point: specific deals can be done to make sure that the people that this country needs and wants to see here in Britain can come here.

Rachel Reeves: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rebecca Pow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ranil Jayawardena: I will make some progress first.
The people we want to see in Britain—those who can contribute to our society, our economy and our communities—should be able to come here and contribute  to our national life and national industries. Indeed, that is how we will continue to make sure that our nuclear industry goes from strength to strength.

Rebecca Pow: Would my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Ranil Jayawardena: Okay.

Rebecca Pow: I knew he would, because my hon. Friend knows that my constituency is adjacent to the enormous new nuclear power station that is being built. We will get a large knock-on effect on employment, and indeed we have the first nuclear degree at the University Centre Somerset, which is in my constituency and the adjacent constituency. Does he agree that we need to keep these brains coming and ensure that this industry is growing and booming as we go forward? We are encouraging young people to go into it, and they want to know that there is a safe future.

Ranil Jayawardena: My hon. Friend has guessed what is coming later in my remarks. I will come on to the future, but I want to focus now on the importance of nuclear, which I think everyone agrees is of key strategic importance to the United Kingdom. I am therefore pleased that Her Majesty’s Government have been clear that they aim to seek to maintain close and effective arrangements for civil nuclear co-operation with Europe and the rest of the world.
As we leave the European Union and enter, in my view—I accept that it might not be everyone’s view—an exciting and prosperous new phase in our kingdom’s history, where we are free to do what we need to do to put our people first and seek trade deals with friends around the world, it is through the cultivation of open, willing and free global markets, interested in innovation from Britain and the revenues that that trade will bring, that we will help to stabilise and boost the UK economy. In this new industrial revolution—perhaps the fourth industrial revolution, as has been championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak)—nuclear power will form a vital part of the UK’s long-term energy mix.
In that context, I want to inform the House of how little of our energy comes from nuclear. Some 72.3% of France’s energy comes from nuclear, compared with 54.1% of Slovakia’s, 51.7% of Belgium’s, 51.3% of Hungary’s and 40% of Sweden’s. We are at less than half that percentage. I would be delighted to be told that I am wrong—I would be delighted if it were higher—but I am informed that it is less than 20%. Nuclear power, as a source of electricity to power millions of homes and businesses for decades to come, is not only clean, low-carbon energy, but reliable. It will also secure our energy, environmental and economic futures. It is therefore absolutely critical to get the regulation of it right.
We have heard about the deal to secure our first new nuclear power station for a generation. It will be built without resort to the public purse and will mean the creation of 26,000 new jobs. It is the sort of industry we want to incentivise in this country to create good new jobs for young people now and in the future. It will also mean energy security, as I have said, which is absolutely critical for our kingdom’s future prosperity, so it is critical that the right safeguards are in place.
It is important that the nuclear safeguards provided under the Bill are distinct from both nuclear safety measures and nuclear security measures. Those measures, which are respectively intended to prevent accidents and to put in place physical protection measures at nuclear sites—are not under the purview of the Bill. They are unaffected by our leaving the EU, because they are not responsibilities provided primarily by Euratom. Euratom has no role in setting security standards or in regulating or inspecting security arrangements in our civil nuclear sector.
Nuclear safety and security are regulated by the Office for Nuclear Regulation—very effectively to date, I might add—and it is the ONR that will assume responsibility for running our effectively equivalent domestic nuclear safeguards regime created under the Bill. That is why, again, I believe that the Bill should stand unamended. Furthermore—international safety and security considerations have been mentioned— the UK will remain a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which we were one of the founding members in July 1957 and remain one of the board members. Our leading role in the IAEA, our work developing and complying fully with international standards and obligations on nuclear safety and security, and our commitment to responsible nuclear non-proliferation thus demonstrate that the UK has no intention of retreating from international standards in our new domestic safeguards regime.

Rachel Reeves: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but I clarify to the House that IAEA standards are not as high as Euratom’s. The Office for Nuclear Regulation has said that it will not be able to meet Euratom’s standards on day one of our exit from the European Union, so that would mean a dilution of the standards that we have today. Does the hon. Gentleman understand and acknowledge that?

Ranil Jayawardena: My point about the IEA—I mean the IAEA; what a tongue-twister!—was not about the standards it provides. It was that we will remain part of the IAEA and will continue to comply fully with the international standards set out and our obligations in relation to nuclear safety and security.
I wish to turn to some other concerns. One of the most common misconceptions is that leaving Euratom will affect the supply of medical radioisotopes. That is simply not correct. Medical radioisotopes are not classed as special fissile material and are not therefore subject to nuclear safeguards. Consequently, the UK’s ability to import medical isotopes from Europe and the rest of the world will not be affected. Further, I understand—if I am wrong, I am sure the Minister will correct me—that the Government are fully committed to supporting nuclear collaboration in our scientific and research communities, having already underwritten the UK’s share of one of the biggest EU nuclear projects last year. Such misunderstandings—and perhaps misinformation —highlight exactly why certainty is necessary. We need to enact the new rules as soon as possible so that medical isotope coverage can continue, and so that people know it continues, unaffected.
Research and development is critical, and it is underpinned by the Bill. I welcome the Government’s emphasising that the decision to withdraw from Euratom  in no way diminishes their nuclear research and development ambitions. In fact, I understand they have stated that maintaining and building on our world-leading fusion expertise and securing alternative routes into the international fusion R&D projects will remain a priority. One example is the Joint European Torus programme, a fusion project based in Oxfordshire—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) may want to comment on it later. The contract is due to end in 2018, but I understand that discussions are already under way with the UK’s European partners to extend it to 2020. If the Government are committed to it, it is right that they continue to guarantee that they will provide their fair share of JET funding up to 2020 in order to extend the contract.

Layla Moran: My constituency lies on the boundary of the Culham centre. The point the staff there are making to me is that this is about not just funding but being able to access the crucial networks of researchers and get the right talent in the right places. Does the hon. Gentleman concede that this will suffer in the short term, unless we get certainty now?

Ranil Jayawardena: I will perhaps answer the hon. Lady’s point in a roundabout way. When I visited Switzerland—I should refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I was impressed to understand that Switzerland, despite having never been part of the EU, was one of the largest recipients of joint funding, because it had the brains to excel at driving technological innovation forward. One of the other biggest recipients of such funding was the UK. A third was Israel, which has never been part of the EU and has very few agreements of the sort that Switzerland has with the EU. Switzerland has some agreements with the EU, and we are leaving the EU. All three nations have great expertise and should continue to strive to ensure access to the networks that this technology and these innovations rely on.
Another such project is the international thermonuclear experimental reactor, a project to build a magnetic fusion device. The agreement was signed multilaterally by China, the EU, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US. It is absolutely right that the UK continues to support such projects. I also understand that the Government have announced an £86 million investment to establish a nuclear fusion technology platform with the aim of supporting UK industry in obtaining contracts for just such projects.
We need to underpin that commitment and funding with some clarity today, however, which is why an additional transition period would be the worst of both worlds. The unique legal status of the EU and Euratom during that period would mean we would not be part of Euratom but would simply be seeking an association with it, or indeed an R&D-only association contingent on free movement and the European Court of Justice—if we are to base our position on Switzerland and refer to it in the wrong terms, as some Opposition Members have done. At the same time, however, we would be unable to enact our own safeguarding measures to underpin all that is good about our nuclear industry—the innovation we have supported and the jobs our young people deserve. I do not believe the new clause stacks up, and I will not be supporting it today.

John Woodcock: It is a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of new clause 1. As far as I could follow the argument of the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) at the end there, he was saying that it would create instability to have an increased transition period for a treaty that has served the UK well for 40 years and that we want to replicate in as much detail as possible in the future arrangements. That is Alice in Wonderland logic and not the kind of rigour we ought to bring to this incredibly serious debate.
This fellow Andrew Duff, a former Liberal Democrat MEP, has been mentioned several times in the Chamber. It is, to my mind, the first time a former Liberal Democrat MEP has been taken as a great authority on any matter by Conservative Members, and possibly by his own party as well. I want to briefly and gently warn Conservative Members on the wisdom of taking former leaders’ pronouncements as general facts. For obvious reasons, I do not seek to dwell on my own party’s predicament on the matter, or that of the Liberal Democrats, given the recent well-publicised difficulties of their former leader in matters of faith. Are we to agree, however, with every pronouncement from Lord Hague, a former leader of the Conservative party, on issues on which he remains an expert? Are we to agree without question that Brexit will undoubtedly diminish Britain’s influence on the world stage, as he has made clear? No, of course we are not, so can we please put that argument to one side and move on to the substance of the debate.

Ranil Jayawardena: Hooray.

John Woodcock: The hon. Gentleman bored the Chamber senseless for three times as long—by my count—as was necessary.

Ranil Jayawardena: rose—

John Woodcock: Of course I will give way, as long as the hon. Gentleman does not go on for quite as long as he did last time.

Ranil Jayawardena: I am sorry if I bored the hon. Gentleman, but he might not have been listening fully.

John Woodcock: I did try.
I would never accuse the Minister of complacency—he is not a complacent man—and I know that as Energy Minister he is giving much time to this matter, but although I do not think there is complacency from Ministers themselves, I am profoundly worried about the capacity in the system to deliver the new arrangements by the time set out. I agree with my neighbour, the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), on so much and we have worked together, but the idea that it is okay to be there or thereabouts in March 2019, at the time of transfer, is, I am afraid, bunkum. A level of certainty has to be written into our nuclear safeguarding regulatory arrangements.
Many Labour Members want our membership of Euratom to continue, howsoever it might be delivered in the future. The alternative at the moment is to rely on a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that is bursting at the seams with all the things it has to deliver on Britain’s exit from the EU. I had a conversation  a few months ago with someone whom I knew from my time as an adviser and who remains in the system. What he had to say about the number of staff looking at the Euratom issue in particular was frightening. There is not remotely the level of assurance that the House ought to expect if it is to give its blessing to the Government and not seek to write into the Bill a commitment to a transition period, which is eminently sensible while we try to work out whether we can stay for good.
Some Members have said that there is no certainty because a negotiation is in progress, but the new clause gives a degree of strength to Ministers, enabling them to say, “Parliament has willed that there needs to be a transition arrangement. Our Act—which is, of course, a contingency Act—makes clear that there must be contingency arrangements, and that is what we require from these negotiations.”

Rebecca Pow: Might I suggest that the new clause actually seeks to confuse? It appears to specify what should happen during the transition period, but it is unclear whether it is specifying what the United Kingdom should seek to be negotiating, or whether it is attempting to mandate the terms. It seems to be the opposite of what the Prime Minister set out in her excellent Florence speech. All the Opposition are doing is confusing the issue, which is leading to a lack of clarification for the nuclear industry which wants, needs and deserves it.

John Woodcock: The hon. Lady may be confused, but we are not, and the industry is not. The industry is strongly urging the Government—as they will know, if they are listening—and all Members to get behind a transition period while we examine the position, to decide whether we can reverse the wrongheaded decision to leave Euratom that was made—in all probability, unnecessarily—when article 50 was served. The alternative is to face a dire cliff edge that could do deep damage to civil nuclear production throughout the United Kingdom. I understand that the Minister is due to visit Sellafield for the first time later this week—

Richard Harrington: indicated dissent.

John Woodcock: The Minister looks surprised by that.

Richard Harrington: It is imminent.

John Woodcock: Well, I hope that when the Minister does come up to Sellafield, he will put his voice and the full voice of his Department behind the campaign that the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and I are shaping to improve our transport infrastructure. It will take him an absolute age to get there, but I hope that when he is there, he will listen closely to what people say. I hope that he will listen to those in my constituency and that of the hon. Lady who will be relying on the new civil nuclear jobs that will come through the NuGen project in Moorside and think again about how our Parliament can strengthen his hand in creating a seamless transition from the existing arrangements to something which we strongly believe needs to look identical. New clause 1 would do that and, even at this late stage, Members in all parts of the House ought to support it.

Rachel Maclean: I rise to speak on this Third Reading debate in the full knowledge that I am not a nuclear expert; nor do I have a considerable nuclear presence in my constituency. However, like millions of other people up and down the country, I rely on nuclear energy to keep my lights on.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I should point out to the hon. Lady that this is not the Third Reading debate. We are dealing with the new clauses and amendments.

Rachel Maclean: Thank you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall turn directly to new clause 1. I do not support the new clause, because it seeks to introduce a transition period to delay the UK’s departure from Euratom. When the proposal was tabled in Committee as new clause 2, we engaged in detailed scrutiny. I applaud the forensic questioning by the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who probed the Minister in great detail. We heard numerous lengthy arguments about why the new clause was unnecessary.
While I understand the Opposition’s desire for a completely smooth transition to new arrangements after we leave the EU and hence Euratom, I do not think that the new clause would achieve that purpose. The Government have made it very clear that they are already making progress on the arrangements for the UK’s safeguarding regime after we leave Euratom, and we have heard considerable evidence of the dangers of putting that at risk. The Bill’s purpose is to minimise any risk to our civil nuclear industry, to jobs in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and to our international treaties. It is critical that the safeguarding regimes are maintained, because civil nuclear is an essential part of our national energy strategy. We have 15 operating reactors, generating about 21% of the country’s electricity, and 36 licensed nuclear sites.
As we have heard, membership of Euratom has served us well, and the Secretary of State has made clear that he wants maximum continuity to enable as close an association as possible to continue with Euratom after we leave the EU. This is not the place to get into arguments about whether or not we should have left Euratom; the fact is that we are in the process of leaving it, and I am sure all Members agree that we must look to the future.
The new clause is redundant, but if it were only redundant, I would accept that that was a weak argument and that the Opposition might argue that it would strengthen the Bill. However, I believe that it is not only redundant, but would be counterproductive. The Government have made a clear commitment to a transition period after we leave the EU. In the Prime Minister’s Florence speech, she committed herself to a transition period, which has been extensively debated in the House. It is widely agreed that during that period we would work within existing EU frameworks, such as Euratom, to avoid the creation of damaging cliff edges in business and in our essential nuclear industry.
On 11 January, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy made a written statement in which he said that any transition period agreed as  part of the EU negotiations would include Euratom. It is surely wrong to try to implement two transition periods with EU bodies, one that would take place before we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 and one that would take place after then. That would create considerable confusion over what our negotiating stance would be. I am sure that most people would accept that with a process that is as complex as leaving the EU, a transition period is a sensible idea because it gives businesses and organisations time to plan. However, requiring a second type of transition period before we leave a EU-related body would leave us open to much questioning about the terms and about what the UK would be trying to achieve in negotiations.
When the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee heard from Dr Golshan of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the body that will take on the safeguarding role after we leave Euratom, she told us that the challenges faced by her organisation in implementing a new function were not negligible, but she did not say that they were insuperable. I believe therefore that we must continue with the Bill as it stands to avoid further delay in putting in place a nuclear safeguards regime, which must be ready in good time.
Given the legal arguments, which have been well rehearsed, it is difficult to see how we could continue to be a full member of Euratom after leaving the EU, as triggering article 50 obliged us to leave associated bodies, as set out in the European treaties. If we accepted the new clause, logically we could not leave the EU on exit day, as Parliament has voted to do, because we would be bound into a form of association with Euratom. The two objectives are logically impossible.
Furthermore, placing such an obligation on the Government would create considerable uncertainty in the negotiations and weaken our negotiating stance. It would also create uncertainty for businesses and people working in the sector, when Members on both sides of the House have made it clear that what they need is certainty. By definition, certainty would be hard to come by were the new clause to be accepted. For the reasons I have given, this proposal was defeated in the Public Bill Committee, and I will not support it on Report.

Drew Hendry: I am delighted to be here with the Minister, who is a genial and hard-working man. I know that he will try to answer some of my questions, and I hope his answers are clear.
When the Secretary of State launched the Bill, he said it was “straightforward”, but the amendments are required because there is nothing straightforward about leaving Euratom. The Scottish National party is concerned about the whole process. The hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) talked about us being “there or thereabouts”, but that is not good enough when it comes to nuclear safeguards. As it stands, the Bill is a safeguards Bill without any safeguards; there is no contingency for anything going wrong, yet Ministers have failed to convince not just hon. Members in this Chamber, but industry and the people. Leaving Euratom will result in more cost and less value, and the opinion of many in the industry is that it will be impossible to set up an equivalent UK authority within the timescales outlined. That is the view of industry, the Office for  Nuclear Regulation, the Nuclear Industry Association and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, all of which gave evidence to the BEIS Committee. I was delighted to hear the Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), point out the great concern about the Government’s ability to do as they propose. All the nuclear industry and all those bodies do not want us to leave Euratom; either they see no benefit in our doing so, or they are actively concerned about the consequences.
Ministers have simply ignored the difficulties and the overwhelming evidence before them. They have plodded ahead, and when asked “How?” they use their favourite word: hope. They hope that things will be in place—that agreements, funding and people will be available. Despite the impending loss of influence in developing policy in Europe on future nuclear decisions, the unanswered questions about cost, the difficulties in training or even recruiting replacement inspectors, they plod ahead. As the Minister said in response to questions on these matters in the Select Committee, “They don’t really know and we don’t really know.”
There are a lot of unknowns in the Bill, which is why it is imperative to amend it. The ONR says plainly that it might need more than a two-year transition period after 2019, yet the Government still provide no assurance.

Stephen Kerr: The hon. Gentleman says the Government give no assurance, but the Prime Minister, in her Florence speech, was explicit about the Government’s agenda in respect of a two-year implementation period. I cannot help concluding that the reason the hon. Gentleman advances this line of argument is that he has a destructive attitude toward the whole process, and his ultimate aim is to create a constitutional and ongoing sense of crisis. In fact, the Bill guarantees some continuity, including the two-year period.

Drew Hendry: The hon. Gentleman, like many of his colleagues in Scotland, likes to try to go to a happy place when faced with harsh realities. The fact is that a two-year transition period is viewed by virtually nobody as a responsible timescale in which to get up and running.

Stephen Kerr: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Drew Hendry: No, I am going to make some progress.
The UK, as it presses ahead with the folly of Hinckley C, will need thousands of workers, many skilled in the nuclear industries.

Rebecca Pow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Drew Hendry: No, I am going to make some progress. I may come back to the hon. Lady, but we will have to see.
Many of those workers will need to be skilled in the nuclear industries, yet current policy does not support the ability to get those workers if there is no concession on the movement of people, but achieving even that is put into a harsh light when it comes to getting highly specialist staff to meet the new safeguarding functions. Those positions are already challenging to fill. Nuclear inspectors do not live on every street—in fact, they are very rare—and they are in global demand. The Minister  says that such staff are required only in the tens, but can he tell me today how many are in place? I offer him the opportunity to intervene. He was asked in November about recruitment. I am trying to get his attention, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will he tell us how the first phase has gone? I will offer him another opportunity to intervene and tell us how many recruits are in place. Is it 15? Is it 10? Is it five? Is it one? Is it none? How many nuclear safeguard inspectors have been set up?
Prospect and Unite the union have given evidence, and Ms Ferns from Prospect said:
“A reasonable approximation is several years—it is not a matter of months but years for people to be able to do that job…It is a small talent pool…even in the best of times.”
Many Members today have cited the testimony of Dr Mina Golshan, the deputy chief inspector and the director of the Sellafield decommissioning, fuel and waste division in the Office for Nuclear Regulation. She has said:
“I have been very clear from the outset in previous evidence sessions, and in discussions with industry as well as BEIS, that it would be unrealistic for us to expect to achieve an equivalent regime to what is in place currently by the time we officially leave Euratom, and that is March 2019.”
The BEIS Committee report, “Leaving the EU: implications for the civil nuclear sector”, states:
“To deliver the new domestic regime the ONR will need to double the number of its inspectors by 2019, and triple its numbers by 2021. Skilling-up the new recruits on time will present additional challenges, as even existing specialists will require 12-18 months of training to become an inspector, and generalists may need five years.”
Those are hefty timescales.
Let us look at the cost. So far, the Government have earmarked £10 million for all the operations in Euratom, yet we can already see that there are going to be much more expensive consequences for the UK. That £10 million figure is dwarfed by the £50 million of Euratom funding that the UK receives for the Joint European Torus project—JET—so it will be interesting to hear from the Minister how that funding is going to be replaced. Leaving Euratom and the JET project has been described as “bonkers” by Steven Cowley, a physicist at the University of Oxford and a former director of the Culham centre for fusion energy, which hosts JET. He is absolutely right. Can the Minister tell us how that funding will be maintained?
Can the Minister also tell us about our future in ITER, the project to build the world’s largest tokamak? The ITER agreement was signed in 2006 by China, the EU, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US, and the building of the tokamak has been under way in France since 2010. The official start of ITER’s operation is scheduled for December 2025. Euratom also funds DEMO, a demonstration fusion power reactor planned to follow ITER by 2050. The UK is a key participant in ITER and sends information, results and design studies from its JET programme to the French site. This co-operation will continue throughout the Brexit process, but it is unclear what the impact of Brexit will be on this co-operation and the continuation of these programmes. Perhaps the Minister can advise us on that. We need to know all this information. Without it, we will need safeguards in place.
The hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who is no longer in its place, mentioned medical isotopes. He said that it was scaremongering to say that they would no longer be available, and that treaties would be in place to allow access to them. However, the critical point is not whether people can get the isotopes; it is that they have a very short half-life. Sometimes they have to be used within hours of being produced in order to maintain their effectiveness. If they are sitting at a border point because there is no customs agreement, they will be completely useless. Will the Minister tell us how we are going to put in place the necessary customs arrangements to prevent that from happening?

Layla Moran: The issue is that we are leaving the single market and the customs union. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even if we have a customs arrangement, the fact that we are leaving the single market is what will cause the delays? As he rightly points out, the half-life of those radioisotopes will mean that fewer people will be able to be treated by them.

Drew Hendry: Without alternative arrangements to allow the free movement of such goods across borders, there will be considerable complication and delay, which could affect patients.
As it stands, it is a risk too far to leave Euratom without cast-iron guarantees. I respect the Minister and heard his messages of hope about having people in place. I heard him say that he would like to ensure that that will happen, but we have had no guarantees about the set-up or whether it will be in place. There are no figures and no definite timescales, and we have heard nothing from the industry to suggest that it is satisfied. Without cast-iron guarantees to protect such things, we know that the new arrangement will cost us more, deliver less and diminish our influence. Given the evidence, it is hard to see even how it could be delivered.
The amendments and new clauses would allow us to look for an opportunity to maintain some kind of associate membership of Euratom. We are talking about doing something with which I completely disagree, but this is a new venture that has never been done before, so we have the opportunity to do new things and to strike new agreements. We could look at an arrangement like the one we had with Ukraine to see whether we could have the same with Euratom. If we are going to make this foolish decision to come out of the EU and Euratom and to leave all these things up to chance, it is incumbent on the UK Government to seek the associations that are required in order to keep things moving. The amendments and new clauses should be taken by the Minister and embraced by those on the Government Benches.

Ben Bradley: I am again a bit disappointed to hear wildly misleading statements from those on the Opposition Benches, including the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), about medical isotopes, which are nothing to do with this Bill.

Stephen Kerr: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) accused Government Members, and Scottish Conservatives in  particular, of seeking to find a happy place. Does my hon. Friend agree that that could never be said of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey? He is more inclined to find a depressing place, which I do not recognise in my native land of Scotland.

Ben Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend, who will know much more than me about SNP Members and their outlook on life.
Our relationship with Euratom is a subject for negotiation. The Government have been clear that they will seek continuity, and they obviously want standards to remain as high as possible. How that connects directly with Euratom is not for this Bill; it is for negotiation directly with the EU. The exact nature of the relationship will of course be closely connected to trade, customs and countless other arrangements.
In Committee, we saw Labour’s attempts to get either a commitment to Euratom, which cannot be given in this Bill, or associate membership, which does not exist and this Bill cannot create. We need to build our own framework so that we are prepared to incorporate whatever kind of relationship with Euratom results from the negotiation. The Government have been clear that that is the most helpful and connected relationship that we can have, so we cannot lay out in this forum what that will look like. We need certainty and structure and to have our own plans in place—not just on paper, but well developed and physically in place—so that we can have continuity regardless of what happens further down the line, meaning that we need to crack on with things now to be ready in time. We heard evidence in Committee about the time needed to put things in place, so we need to crack on now.
I do not understand where the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) was coming from in his speech. While very eloquent, he did not seem to grasp that we cannot write into the Bill things that have not yet happened or are not yet agreed. We cannot include a transitional period, and the Government cannot accept an amendment that foresees a future negotiation with another party, the result of which we just do not know. We need to be ready on exit day. We need to ensure that we cannot be taken by surprise and that continuity is ensured.

Albert Owen: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is on message, but the message is wrong. The words that I used in my contribution, which was echoed by SNP Members, were not mine, but those of the industry and the experts within it. For once, will the Government start listening to those who understand the industry, rather than bantering about who on which side of the House might be wrong?

Ben Bradley: I am sure the Minister will agree that we need to support the industry and that we need to do what the industry asks. My point is nothing other than that. My point is that we cannot make that decision in this Bill. It is for the negotiation to decide at a later date.
New clause 1 neglects to recognise that an implementation period is subject to negotiation and must be agreed directly with the EU—we cannot do it unilaterally. The idea of implementation before withdrawal also does not fit with broader plans and discussions that have been  mooted for transition out of the EU after withdrawal in March 2019. It simply does not fit. The Government clearly cannot include in a Bill the outcome of a discussion that has not happened.
We need to decide the basic framework now and act accordingly.

Jim Cunningham: We understand there are certain things the Government cannot say about the negotiations, but ultimately we want to know the outcome of those negotiations before withdrawal so that Parliament can have a view on it, rather that the Government operating a Henry VIII clause.

Ben Bradley: I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s background, but I guess it probably is not business.
We cannot fix the plan for withdrawal and implementation in stone now. The Labour party wants to build into the Bill a clause saying that the Bill is contingency only. Our relationship with Euratom is subject to negotiation. No one has written anything off. We want a positive relationship, but we might have to develop and rely on our own framework, and the work to put it in place needs to happen now. An amendment to say that the Bill is merely a contingency would achieve the opposite of its intention by reducing impetus and leading to delays in the process of getting our safeguards in place, which is only bad for the industry and for all the things the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) tried to raise.
That is why I oppose new clause 1, and I hope to speak later about my support for the Bill more broadly.

Alex Norris: I enjoyed serving on the Public Bill Committee, and I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1 and 2, and amendment 3.
On new clause 1, while I have slightly buried the lead by referencing this earlier, it needs full consideration in this place. Members need to know the judgment of Dr Golshan, who is responsible at the ONR for recreating Euratom in this country:
“Our aim, currently, is to have a system in place that enables the UK to fulfil its international obligations by March 2019, which is when we intend to leave Euratom. I have been very clear in the past—I will repeat it here—that we will not be able to replicate Euratom standards on day one.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 7, Q9.]
Members should reflect on that, whatever the political knockabout, because it makes a compelling case for a transition period. Otherwise we will be saying that our nuclear safeguards regime should not be as good as it is today, and I have not heard anyone suggesting that—I do not believe that it would be tolerable.
A week is a long time in politics, and three months is a lifetime in the Brexit process—perhaps it just feels like that—but over that period we have seen the Government move on this point. Conservative Members asked how we can talk about this hypothetical idea. Well, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy himself said less than two weeks ago that the Government want Euratom to be involved in the implementation period. Now is the time to make good on that.
In a similar vein, on new clause 2, if I had £1 for every time someone mentioned in Committee that this is a contingency Bill, I would be able to meet the Foreign  Secretary’s new financial commitment to the NHS. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), would be a particularly significant donor, having mentioned that many times.
If this is a contingency Bill, we really should say what it is contingent on, and we should say that in the Bill. Otherwise it is not a contingency Bill, but a Bill that will be law until the Minister decides on the 19.52 train home that it is not law any more. That is not a satisfactory way to legislate.
Finally, on amendment 3, one issue that has developed since Second Reading is whether we actually have to do any of this. Ministers clearly said on Second Reading that leaving Euratom is legally necessary as part of leaving the EU. We tested that in Committee. I asked two senior lawyers in this area, Jonathan Leech and Rupert Cowan from Prospect Law, whether triggering article 50 necessitates leaving Euratom and if they would have advised the Government to follow this path. To the first question they answered “No” and “Absolutely not” respectively. Jonathan Leech’s answer to the second question was:
“The advice would be that you do not have to accept this and it may not be in your interests to do so.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 12, Q23.]
That is significant, and it is a departure from where we were on Second Reading.
I represent a leave constituency, and I am always mindful of that when dealing with anything relating to Brexit. I have spent a lot of time knocking on doors and have heard every conceivable argument for remaining or leaving. Funnily enough, I never heard the argument—I suspect no one in this Chamber did—that our membership of Euratom is undesirable, or that there is a desire for a diminution of our nuclear safeguards regime. There is not much of a case for doing this if we do not have to. If we are doing it only because of an arbitrary red line drawn up in Downing Street that we could cross while still delivering Brexit, we are fools to do so. Either way, as amendment 3 states, Ministers ought to come to this place to justify their approach, because once again this is not a decision for the 19.52 train.
Lots of work has gone into the Bill and I have enjoyed participating in its consideration. I believe that we should all support the Opposition proposals, because they would make the Bill better and then we might not need it at all.

Richard Harrington: I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. Those who have heard our consideration of the Bill for the first time today will not realise, given that most of our discussion has been about one or two new clauses, that many other aspects were discussed in Committee. I pay tribute to the Opposition Members who have participated, as well Government Members, and particularly the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), whose cameo Brexit role has been well appreciated. Many points were dealt with by consensus in Committee and in our discussions afterwards. Today’s debate has focused on new clause 1, but I will also speak to the other new clauses and amendments in the group.
The overall strategy for withdrawal from Euratom, and our ambitions for our future relationship with it, were the subject of a comprehensive written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 January. I think that most Members on both sides of the House would agree that, as I have stated publicly in Committee and privately afterwards, we are seeking the closest and most effective association with Euratom. We are therefore putting in place all the measures necessary to ensure that the UK can operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state from day one.
As Members will be fully aware, the nature of our future relationship with Euratom is part of the next phase of negotiations, which is yet to start. The written ministerial statement set out the principles upon which our strategy is based, many of which have been discussed today: to aim for continuity with current relevant Euratom arrangements; to ensure that the UK maintains its leading role in European nuclear research; and to ensure that the nuclear industry in the UK has the necessary skilled workforce. We will be seeking: a close association with Euratom’s research and training programme, which includes the JET project and the international thermonuclear experimental reactor project; continuity of open trade arrangements to ensure that the nuclear industry can continue to trade across EU borders; and maintenance of close and effective co-operation with Euratom on nuclear safety.

Rachel Reeves: rose—

Richard Harrington: It is a pleasure to give way to the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

Rachel Reeves: I thank the Minister and particularly the Secretary of State for the written ministerial statement published on 11 January, which gave much more clarity on the Government’s aims and ambitions in this area. On the seventh day of consideration of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill by the Committee of the whole House, Ministers gave a commitment to publish a timetable with milestones that the Government will need to achieve to meet the objectives set out in the written ministerial statement. When does the Department plan to publish that timetable, because I really think it is crucial? Can we also have an update on progress towards a voluntary agreement with the IAEA for safeguarding inspections, and on how discussions are going regarding the nuclear co-operation agreements, which are crucial to getting the association we need?

Richard Harrington: If the hon. Lady will have a bit of patience, I will come to those points, all of which are valid, later in my speech. Progress on many of those points will be included in the quarterly statements, which are the result of discussions in Committee.
I have been through the important points covered in the written ministerial statement, so let me turn to the point about associate membership made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)—I learned how to pronounce his constituency in the Westminster Hall debate; I hope he realises that I am showing off now—and others. As I have already stated at the Dispatch Box, we cannot be an associate member of Euratom because  there is no such concept in the treaty as it stands. We have had a lot of discussions about whether we could. The hon. Member for Leeds East—

Rachel Reeves: West.

Richard Harrington: I am sorry; I come from Leeds, so I should have known the difference.
The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) mentioned Ukraine, which has been mentioned many times. Ukraine has association agreements on specific parts of Euratom’s activities, with research and development being the classic one. We must work within the existing legal framework, which allows for close association but not this theoretical category of associate membership.

Albert Owen: I am grateful to the Minister and the Secretary of State for the clarifications they have given today and previously in writing. I understand what the Minister is saying, but my point is that we are in uncharted waters. We need to get on the front foot, and the best way to do that is by acting on behalf of the UK nuclear industry, which is asking for associate membership. Will the Minister therefore please assure us that he will fight for an associate type of membership?

Richard Harrington: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, this quite amuses me, because last week I was berated for being a mouthpiece for the nuclear industry—something with which I was pleased to agree, by the way. The important point is that the language of whether we can have associate membership or not is not important; the important thing is what we come up with. People inside and outside the House can call it what they want, but effectively we all want the same thing. It is just not correct to call it associate membership, however, because there is no such thing. I have made that clear absolutely beyond doubt, as has the Secretary of State.

Alan Whitehead: In the light of what the Minister has just said, will he confirm that in his view an associated status in relation to nuclear safeguards would be distinctly possible?

Richard Harrington: I hope and believe that a very close association to do with nuclear safeguards absolutely will be possible, but I do not think it helps just to bandy language between one side and the other. We all know what we want, and I am delighted that everybody—it seems to me—on the Opposition and Government Benches wants exactly the same thing. We have all made our points about the language, but I think we all want the same thing. That is very unusual in this House and it really is a credit to everybody.
It is essential that projects and investments are not adversely affected by our withdrawal from the EU and can continue to operate in the certainty that nuclear safeguards arrangements will be in place. That is why we are putting in place arrangements for a new domestic nuclear safeguards regime, regulated by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, as well as negotiating new bilateral agreements with the IAEA and nuclear co-operation agreements with priority third countries. Those arrangements are not dependent on the EU negotiations and the UK Government’s work is well advanced.
The Bill and the regulations that will be made under its powers are crucial. They will enable us to establish a domestic nuclear safeguards regime to meet international safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation standards when Euratom safeguards arrangements no longer apply in the UK. As Members have noted, it will take time to develop and implement the new regime, so it is absolutely imperative that we maintain the momentum of the work needed to deliver it in the timescale required. However well meaning the new clauses and amendments are—I accept in good faith the reasons why they were tabled—the reality is that they could delay our domestic preparations and lead to uncertainty in our discussions with international partners. There can be no question of our waiting until we know the outcome of negotiations before we put in place our own arrangements. The implications of not having the right systems operating from when Euratom safeguards arrangements no longer apply are too serious for the industry and for our position in the international safeguards regime.
As far as the implementation period is concerned, we intend to ensure continuity for the nuclear industry and to avoid the possibility of a cliff edge for the industry on the date of exit. Members will be aware—if they were not listening at the time, this has been mentioned several times already today, so they will be aware now—that the Prime Minister set out in her Florence speech her desire for an implementation period after the UK ceases to be a member of the EU. If the European Commission agrees to an implementation period of around two years, the UK will not be a member state of the European Union during that period. None the less, the acquis will continue to apply, which means that, for the duration of that implementation period, the UK will expect to continue to pay into the EU, to be bound by its rules and to benefit from access to its market. The European Commission’s draft guidelines are explicit that, in its view, this acquis would include Euratom matters. The implication of that—I accept that it is an implication because it has to be tested in negotiations—is that the current Euratom regime could continue to apply during any transition period.
I have to reiterate that a transition period prior to our withdrawal, as proposed by new clause 1, is not a situation envisaged in the proposals for the implementation period. Both parties to the discussions agree that it would helpful to have the matter agreed as speedily as possible—again, there is no disagreement over that—so as to provide the certainty that we need. Whatever the outcome of the talks about an implementation period, let me emphasise that the UK’s overarching objective remains to maintain as close and effective an association with Euratom for the long term as possible.
New clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, proposes not an implementation period after exit, but a transitional period before exit. That would delay the UK’s exit from Euratom, but that situation is not envisaged in the proposals for the implementation period, or in the article 50 notification that has already been passed by Parliament.
Let me briefly raise quarterly reporting, which I mentioned in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Leeds West. It is very important to give Parliament clarity about the progress that the Government are making. That was why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a commitment in the written  ministerial statement to provide quarterly updates on progress, which will include updates on the negotiations and progress made by the ONR on establishing the UK’s domestic safeguard regime.
I hope that those arguments will persuade Opposition Members not to press the amendments and new clauses to a Division.

Alan Whitehead: We will not be pressing any measure to a vote, except for new clause 1, which has been debated in a very unsatisfactory way this afternoon. We are not convinced by the responses that we have received, so we will be pressing it to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 255, Noes 294.

Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 1

Nuclear safeguards

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) ensuring that inspections of nuclear facilities and materials for the purpose of nuclear safeguards continue at the level previously established by UK membership of EURATOM.”
This amendment would aim to ensure that nuclear safeguarding inspections continue at the same level subsequent to leaving EURATOM as they were when the UK was a member of EURATOM.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4,page2,line41, leave out from “must” to the end of line 44 and insert—
“(a) consult—
(i) the ONR,
(ii) the National Audit Office, and
(iii) such other persons (if any) as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult, and
(b) lay before Parliament a statement declaring that he or she is satisfied that the staffing and financial resource available to the ONR is sufficient for the purpose of assuming responsibility for nuclear safeguarding in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to declare that the ONR has the resources necessary to take on extra responsibilities for nuclear safeguarding in the UK.
Amendment 5, in clause 2,page4,line13, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only exercise powers under this section at the point at which amendment of any of the legislation in subsection (1) becomes necessary in order to complete the process of transposition of responsibility for nuclear safeguarding from EURATOM to the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and for no other purpose.
(1B) Upon exercising the power set out in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the operation of the power.”
This amendment would limit circumstances under which the Secretary of State may exercise certain powers in this section and requires a report to be laid before Parliament.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page4,line41, at end insert
“, but not before the Secretary of State has published draft regulations relating to each of the other provisions of this Act under which the Secretary of State may make regulations.”
This amendment would ensure that draft regulations specified in the Bill are published before the provisions of the Act come into force.

Alan Whitehead: In speaking to these amendments, I want to draw attention to further events that have taken place between the end of the Committee stage and today’s Report stage. I say “further events” because they are separate from the very welcome statement that the Secretary of State has made on what we may do about negotiating an association with Euratom, which I think has helped our proceedings considerably. Another matter that might have helped proceedings considerably had it taken place a little earlier was our having the impact assessment on the Bill that we have now received.
As I am sure hon. Members know, impact assessments should, under Cabinet Office rules, ideally be produced before Bills are discussed. To be honest, it is pretty bad that it has taken so long for the impact assessment to arrive, particularly as it arrived after our deliberations in Committee had concluded. I would say that it is particularly bad following an examination of what the impact assessment actually says—it might have helped our proceedings in Committee had we been able to look at it at that time.
Predominantly, the assessment works on the basis of costing various options relating to what a future inspection regime would look like. Indeed, there are or could be choices, as we have heard, about that inspection regime, which is, after all, at the heart of the Bill. How are we going to replicate in the closest possible detail the inspection arrangements that franked our probity as a nuclear nation in international agreements on non-proliferation and nuclear safeguarding? We have been signed up to those arrangements all these years, but we have hitherto engaged with them through the agency of Euratom, rather than independently. As we know, duties in relation to safeguarding ultimately end in agreements made between nuclear states and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The inspection regime we envisage for the future could vary, because the level of inspection—such as the number of inspections and the depth of inspection needed to satisfy the minimum criteria of the IAEA—could be at a lower level than we have been used to under the Euratom regime. We might envisage a bronze standard inspection regime whereby we scrape by in our future relationship with the IAEA, or we could ensure that the inspection regime, overseen by the ONR, will be as good and as thorough as that carried out by Euratom inspectors in the past. As the impact assessment says, that would be marginally more expensive.
I am pleased that the latter option is strongly advocated in the impact assessment, because it seems to me that we should not seek in future to get by on the lowest level we can get away with. Instead, we should assure ourselves of our own integrity on the matter, and assure others likewise—both the IAEA and the countries with which we will be making bilateral agreements—that we are doing it absolutely properly. That will entail seeking to continue with inspections at the high level laid down in Euratom’s arrangements. That is what amendment 1 is about. It is designed to place in the Bill exactly what the impact assessment states we should do—to ensure that we will go forward at that level.
The Minister may well say—I hope he does—that we are committed to maintaining that level of inspection regardless of whether it is written in the Bill. But there is a problem with that: when we go independent, will we have the resources to carry out inspections to that level,  or will we need an extended period in which we are allowed to scrape by with the minimum, because that is all we will be able to do?
At the beginning of the Bill Committee we heard from an excellent witness, Dr Golshan, the deputy chief inspector at the ONR. She gave us a fairly stark statement of reality, which members of the Committee have shared this afternoon. Those hon. Members will all recall Dr Golshan indicating clearly that when we leave Euratom,
“we will not be able to replicate Euratom standards on day one.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 7, Q9.]
In amendment 1, we set out an aim for the Bill: that we cleave to the Euratom standards as soon as possible and assure ourselves that we have the resources to do so.
There is a wider context. What resources will the ONR have to enable it to carry out the substantial new tasks that we set it in this legislation? The ONR is mainly funded through charges to the nuclear industry. That is how it generally recovers the money for its operations, but it also receives some grant funding. Essentially, that funding pays for the nuclear safeguarding work, while the charges on the nuclear industry pay for the ONR’s other functions, which are not the subject of this Bill.
That distinction is important, because the Government intend to halve the grant to the ONR in the period to 2020. At the outset of the negotiations, we face the prospect of the ONR being able to do less work than it does at the moment. If it is to continue to do as much as it does now, it will probably have to levy substantially higher charges on the industry to make up for the loss of the grant up to 2020. At the same time, if the Bill progresses, we are plainly saying that the ONR will have to undertake a whole lot of new work that it has not budgeted for, that has not been in its terms of reference for a long time and that will clearly require a lot more resource. As we heard in oral evidence to the Committee, that is no mean amount of additional work for the ONR to undertake.
To enable it to carry out all its functions, Euratom employs about 160 staff, 25%—or 40—of whom focus on UK installations. One can reasonably assume that the ONR would have to add a similar number of people to its complement of staff if it were to take on the work done by Euratom on nuclear safeguarding. The safeguards unit in the ONR comprises eight professional staff. Between now and March 2019, therefore, the ONR will have to find roughly 32 staff—qualified, highly skilled and trained nuclear inspectors—from somewhere to take over that responsibility. That is in addition to all the other things that the ONR will have to put in place, such as IT systems and administration resources, to allow it to take on that role.
Another excellent witness who contributed to our proceedings in Committee was Sue Ferns, from the union Prospect. She stated that training safeguards inspectors could take up to five years. We are faced with the prospect of needing 32 such people within 18 months. She said, of the role of an inspector:
“This is a warranted role; this is not just working in the industry. It is not just about knowledge, but experience and commanding the confidence of the companies and the organisations that you deal with, so there are very specific aspects to that role.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 35, Q69.]
She also alluded to the relatively small pool in which we are fishing. Not only do we have to fish in the pool, but we have to do so accurately, and we have to attract a good proportion of those people if we are to fill the gap. Consequently, she put a considerable question mark against whether it is possible for the ONR to be ready, as we would like it to be, for the tasks that we are going to give it.
I accept that a number of people in the nuclear industry have many of the qualities that could make them nuclear inspectors—indeed, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) said in Committee, there are many such people in the industry—so it may not be necessary to fully train everybody for five years. Nevertheless, it will be a very steep cliff to climb to get those 32 inspectors, at least, in place for whenever we take over inspections from Euratom. I sincerely hope, as I am sure all Members do, that those matters can be resolved. It may be a question of making sure that the ONR is funded to the extent that it can properly undertake that activity of fishing in a small pool—perhaps, as I mentioned in Committee, with pound notes attached to the end of its fishing line.
A number of other factors relating to nuclear inspections may also come into play. Euratom may be prepared, as part of an association agreement, to lend the UK safeguarding inspectors. A number of different courses could be pursued. Nevertheless, there is a big question mark against the capacity and ability of the ONR, even with all best endeavours in place, to be properly ready in time, given its present circumstances, its possible future circumstances and how it will address them.
For that reason, it is important, at the appropriate time, to have sign-off from the Secretary of State that we have in place not only a regime but the resources available to carry out work under it in the new circumstances. That appropriate time will be when all the different possibilities have been explored and when the different ways of doing things have been looked at. Amendment 4 would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament that, at that point, he or she is satisfied—and does not simply hope—that everything looks all right and that we can safely proceed on the basis that we have not only the powers in place but the people and resources to use those powers.
There are further things we will need to do to be able fully to present to the IAEA our case that we have a regime in place that it can happily endorse as our new voluntary arrangement with it— the treaty with the IAEA that the Minister is engaged in negotiating at the moment. I am sure we will know the outcome of those negotiations in the fullness of time, and I understand that they are going well, but we will need to have all our ducks in a row in satisfying the IAEA about where we are.
One thing we will need to do is make sure that we have aligned all existing legislation with the new regime that we establish, and here things get difficult. The Government have chosen the easy way out in doing that, and they have given rise to enormous disquiet about the procedure they have adopted and its potential consequences. In clause 2, they have given the Secretary of State plenipotentiary powers to amend retrospectively by regulation not one but two Acts of Parliament agreed previously by this House. That can be done on  the basis not only of negotiations we do not know about but of treaties we have not had sight of and that are, indeed, not yet concluded.
The powers that are given to the Secretary of State in clause 2— Henry VIII powers, essentially—would have been familiar to Henry VIII himself, because the King was a self-absorbed tyrant who had little time even for the rudimentary Parliament of his day. Mercifully, such powers have not been used quite so frequently subsequently —there are a number of people one might think about in that role, although I would exclude certain people, obviously.
Although such powers have not been used very frequently in this House subsequent to the monarch who gave them their title, they have been used a little more frequently in recent years. The House has fought for many years against the idea that the Executive, by executive action, can overturn, amend or take in a different direction what Parliament has decided through legislation. When such powers have been sought in the past, they have in some instances been successfully challenged, and on many occasions strongly challenged, on both sides of the House.
You might have gathered, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not like Henry VIII powers. We think that they overturn the sovereignty of Parliament in dealing with issues such as these and give the Executive powers that are unwarranted on virtually all occasions. Legislation should be written in that form only in a dire emergency, where a calamity will befall the nation if such action is not taken. In all other circumstances, legislation should properly appear before Parliament to be debated. If the legislation replaces or substantially amends primary legislation, the process should also be one of primary legislation.
In this instance, the primary legislation that might be envisaged would not detain the House forever or be particularly complex or difficult. Indeed, on Second Reading we saw how it was possible, with good will on all sides, to take all stages of a Bill through the House on one day. When changes are made with consensus in the House, the procedure is rapid, straightforward and achievable. Why can that procedure not be adopted for this legislation? Is it because of a national emergency, or will the sky fall in? Has it not been possible to find parliamentary time to undertake what would be neat and precise Bills with all-party support to make the amendments that the Government want? Indeed, based on what has previously been achieved, would a brief piece of legislation taken on the Floor of the House not have agreement in all parts of it?
I am not persuaded, nor do I think I would easily be persuaded, that it is impossible to proceed through primary legislation for these aligning pieces of legislation. Clause 2 as drafted does not have to be included in the Bill, but the Government have chosen to do so. When all the proceedings have concluded, legislation will need to be in line with new procedures elsewhere on the statute book. That is not the issue; the issue is whether, in order to bring that legislation in line with whatever we have agreed, we effectively declare a quasi-national emergency and say that we have to adopt Henry VIII clauses. That would be quite wrong not only in this Bill, but in most other pieces of legislation in which I suspect the Government may be tempted to include them to get round the proper procedures in the House in the process of aligning our laws post Brexit.
Ideally, we would like simply to strike clause 2 out and say, “You should not do it in this way at all,” but frankly, that might be seen as wrecking the Bill, because a lot of other material would have to be written into the Bill in order to remove the provision fully. In the interests of making progress, and in the absence of what we think should be the final, proper procedure, we suggest in amendment 5 procedures that would not strike the clause out but would amend it very substantially, so that it would at least to some extent come back for parliamentary consideration.
In my view, that is probably still not good enough. There are still Henry VIII clauses in the Bill, but at least the amendment would go some way towards ameliorating the unacceptable way in which those clauses work at present. To my mind, that is the minimum change in the arrangements that the Minister should accept. If he cannot, we will want to pursue the matter, at least as far as a Division this afternoon.
Finally, I will say a brief word on amendment 6, which has been tabled essentially to remind the Secretary of State that at the time of writing, no draft regulations relating to Bill had appeared. I would have expected that to happen as an essential part of enabling proper scrutiny of a Bill to take place. However, after the amendment was tabled, as if by magic, the draft regulations were published at 4.30 pm last Friday—30 minutes before the close of play for the admissibility of amendments for this stage of the Bill. Happily I can report, having scrutinised them in record time, that they appear to be uncontroversial in their application, so I thank the Minister for finally arranging for them to be produced. It is not his fault that he was under such time constraints to slot the Bill into the legislative process when it was not really ready for examination, but I note, in finishing, that that is really not the way to do good legislation in this place.

Stephen Kerr: I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead). I still consider myself to be a relatively new Member, but I had the privilege to serve on Public Bill Committee. It was a masterclass in how to oppose constructively, so I pay tribute to him and the skillset that he undoubtedly brings to his portfolio and to the added value that he brings to the legislative process. I am glad to say that because it is meant genuinely and sincerely. I understand from his comments that he will not press amendment 6 to a vote. On amendment 1, however, we have heard it repeated ad nauseam that there will be no reduction in or diminution of standards for the inspection criteria on nuclear safeguards. I am disposed to believe these commitments, which have been given in all manner of forums and contexts.
Amendment 4 deals with the allocation of resources to ensure that the ONR can meet its extra responsibilities for nuclear safeguarding in the UK. I believe, having listened to the Minister’s undertakings and to the witnesses from the ONR both in Committee and before the BEIS Select Committee, that there is more than adequate evidence of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the inspectorate is appropriately resourced and has the required staffing levels and so forth.

Trudy Harrison: Does my hon. Friend know that the ONR has already begun the process of recruiting safeguarding inspectors?

Stephen Kerr: I am grateful for that information.
One of the many highlights of the first three months I have enjoyed as a member of the Select Committee was our visit to the Hinkley Point C project, an immensely impressive project that I would encourage Members on both sides to witness. It is an incredible undertaking—nothing short of a feat of modern engineering—and something we should all take great pride in. I was disappointed to hear the rather flippant comments about it from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). It is a vital strategic project that will safeguard our nuclear security, so it was disappointing to hear him dismiss it, although I understand that SNP Members, as committed nationalists, are against all things nuclear, which is much to be regretted, particularly from a Scottish viewpoint.
One of the highlights of the trip was our visit to Bridgwater and Taunton College to see the partnering there on nuclear skills, whether nuclear construction or engineering. It was immensely encouraging to see so many young workers—men and women—preparing through apprenticeships for a career in nuclear. One of the most upsetting things about hearing Members speak negatively about such a vital and strategically important industry is the impact it has on young people. We had an excellent debate in the House just over a week ago on space. We talked about the space programme in the UK being recognised and understood—we learned it was worth about £16 billion and that 6% of the global spend on space was in the UK—and what a spaceport in Scotland, in Ayrshire, would do to excite the imaginations of our young men and women in relation to the possibilities of a career in that area.
The same is true of nuclear. We need young men and women to see nuclear as a viable career, and there, at Bridgwater and Taunton College, we saw the evidence of the investment in skills and capabilities that is essential for the future of the UK’s nuclear industry. There are very exciting career prospects for those who commit themselves to a career in the nuclear industry, and that is to be encouraged; we need those skills. I am confident that the immediate provisions are being made, in the short term but also in the intermediate term, to ensure that those skills and capabilities will exist, and we shall be able to staff the ONR with an inspectorate and all the other skilled specialists we will need over time, although, on the basis of the evidence we received, I admit that that would not be completely in place by the date of departure.
The Prime Minister made it clear in her Florence speech that the British position would be to seek a transitional implementation period of up to two years. That period is immensely valuable in the context of the Bill. As was mentioned earlier, we received evidence that it could take 18 to 24 months to train an inspector adequately, and up to five years for someone to reach the level of an in-depth specialist, so we will need that time. However, whatever the outcome of the negotiations on our future relationship with the European Union and its institutions, including Euratom, some interim measures would still be possible.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey pointed out, we are on new territory, and it is possible for us to negotiate all kinds of new arrangements. I agree with him, in the widest context,  that it is possible to reach a negotiated agreement that would take care of these matters. We are not an insignificant country, and ours is not an insignificant economy.

Drew Hendry: I am delighted to have given the hon. Gentleman so much material today. He seems to be fascinated by my words. He will concede, however, that I was talking in the context of our being foolish and reckless enough to leave both the EU and Euratom.

Stephen Kerr: That is interesting editing. I cannot recall word for word exactly what was said before and immediately after what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think that I clearly heard him say that it was possible, in these new circumstances, to negotiate new arrangements. We must indeed accept that we will need new arrangements, and that they will need to be negotiated. As was said earlier, we cannot take something like associate membership off the shelf—I think Members will have to accept that such an arrangement does not currently exist—but I agree with him that anything is negotiable. I come from a background of sales negotiation, and that was one of the mantras by which we lived: “everything is negotiable”.
I think that when wise adult heads are brought to bear, definite win-win outcomes are possible, as they are in the context of the Bill and its subject matter. I hope very much that the Government will use their powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the powers that this Bill will confer on them to bring the appropriate measures to life at the right time, so that we can secure the continuity and the prosperity of the UK’s nuclear energy business.

Drew Hendry: As we have heard many times, and as the evidence has borne out, the industry is clearly desperate for the standards that we currently enjoy through Euratom to be maintained. We have heard time and again that the industry would prefer us to remain in Euratom or to have associate membership, but if that does not happen, which seems to be the direction in which we are going today, it has said that it would like the new standards to be the same as those of Euratom.
It is vital for us to secure a commitment that the UK agency will be able not only to cope with the new work but to obtain the necessary resources, at the levels that are required through Euratom. However, as I said earlier, I do not believe that that is achievable, given the challenges. Crucially, there are still not enough people with enough experience. No matter how much the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) wants to persuade children that science is a good idea, I do not think we have yet found a way to compress five years into two, and it will not be possible in that period to gain the experience nuclear inspectors require.
Two requirements still need to be met: one is for complete transparency in the process, so that those who have expressed concern and the industry can know what is happening; the other is, through the amendments, to get a guarantee that arrangements will be in place that ensure that nuclear safeguards are operated to the same standards as now. I am anti-nuclear and proud that my party is, too, but we have to protect people’s interests where the nuclear industry is concerned. Too many of us in the highlands remember the mess left at Dounreay. Anyone who wants to know what can go wrong in the nuclear industry should go up there and learn about what was left on the beaches and the radioactive material  moved about in welly boots because the equipment had rusted, before the correct standards were put in place through Euratom.

Ed Vaizey: I cannot support the amendments, although I have a great deal of sympathy with the position set out by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead). The amendment I tabled with colleagues from both sides of the House to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill sought to ensure that the Government consulted fully on implementing a Euratom-like regime after we left, so I understand why he has tabled amendments to ensure that the Government are transparent in their dealings. I did not press my amendment to a vote because the Secretary of State and his very able Minister were clear about their responsibilities to keep the House informed about the arrangements being put in place to replicate what we have in Euratom; indeed, they published a written ministerial statement shortly after that debate and before the debate on Report, and they have committed to come to the House quarterly to make clear the progress being made. None the less, as I say, I have a great deal of sympathy for the Opposition’s argument.
I support the Bill because it puts in place some of the structures we will need to replace the arrangements we had as a member of Euratom. I have listened to much of the debate and heard some fine speeches, but however brilliant the speeches, I cannot help thinking that the entire debate takes place in a slightly Alice in Wonderland world. Over many months, I have made no secret of the fact that it is a source of deep and profound frustration for me and many colleagues that we are leaving Euratom. As I said in an intervention, we are leaving Euratom on a technicality. I urge any colleagues who are passionate about Brexit and the apparent freedom and greatness that it will bring back to this country not to try to wrap Euratom up in that thesis.
Euratom is a treaty that works extremely well. The UK is one of the world’s leading civil nuclear powers. Our industry is highly respected and essential to the development not only of current nuclear power, but of nuclear fusion, which is where my interest comes in, owing to the research institute at Culham. Under the Bill, we will engage over the next 18 months in a simple of exercise of replicating almost as exactly as we can the arrangements we now enjoy under Euratom. We are not taking back control. We are not regaining sovereignty. We are not going out into the world as a global power. We are simply going to replicate perfectly serviceable arrangements that already exist, and we are doing so on a technicality. I am not making any particular criticism. This is simply an observation of the collateral damage that Brexit has caused to a particular sector. It will be expensive and time-consuming.
As I have said, I wanted to speak to the amendments to make it clear why I was not supporting them and to take the opportunity to thank Secretary of State and the Minister for all their work. They have been candid and open with me and the Chairman of the BEIS Committee and with other concerned hon. Members on both sides of the House about the work they are doing to try to limit any damage to our nuclear industry. They really have worked tirelessly on this issue. From my perspective—other Members might not agree—I think that they have listened and taken on board our concerns.

Antoinette Sandbach: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there were an opportunity for us to seek some sort of associate membership of Euratom once we have left, we should attempt to do that? That would minimise the cost to the UK taxpayer, unlike having to completely replicate the regime over here. I also echo his thanks to the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for the way in which they have approached this matter.

Ed Vaizey: I understand what my hon. Friend is seeking, but the point has already been made that there is in effect no real associate membership of Euratom at the moment. Ukraine and Switzerland have what is described as associate membership, but it is certainly nowhere close to the kind of arrangements that we have with Euratom now. The Government intend to have as close a relationship as possible with Euratom, whether we call it associate membership or anything else, and we will have to put in place our agreements with the other nuclear states with which we currently enjoy a relationship under Euratom—notably Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States of America. That work is under way, although the timing of the implementation of those agreements is unfortunately not in our gift. It is in the gift of other legislatures that might not be as efficient as this august legislature, but I know that we want to replicate those agreements.
I am particularly pleased that the Prime Minister did not follow the example of Watford, the football team of my hon. Friend the Minister, and change the manager unnecessarily in the past two weeks. I am extremely pleased that he remains his place scoring goals for the nuclear industry, and I look forward to co-operating with him for many years to come.

Eleanor Laing: Does no one else wish to speak? I call the Minister.

Richard Harrington: I am as speechless as you are on this occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe hon. Members on both sides of the House said all that they wanted to say on the first group of amendments. I was also speechless at the compliments that have been paid to me very justifiably—[Laughter.] The compliments were justifiable in the case of the Secretary of State, although they were rather exaggerated in my case. I do hope that the Hansard reporters can sort out my language on that; otherwise the Watford Observer will be interested not just in the comments on the Watford football team’s change of management but in what could be distortions of what I have just said about the compliments paid to the Secretary of State.
I should like to move on. I seriously thank hon. Members for their amendments in this group. They address a range of practical issues around the Bill and the implementation of the nuclear safeguards regime. I shall turn first to amendment 1, which is a very good place to start, as the famous song says. It is important that we have made a commitment to this effect on several occasions. As I have said, and as the Secretary of State has said in his written ministerial statement, the Government are committed to ensuring that the new regime
“is as comprehensive and robust as that currently provided by Euratom.”
It will not be light version of it.
On inspections, the Nuclear Safeguards Bill is the essential first step in setting up a domestic nuclear safeguards regime. The detail of the regime, including further details in respect of the powers for safeguard inspectors, will be provided in the regulations that underpin the Bill. The pre-consultation draft regulations that were published on Friday provided details of the ONR’s role in respect of nuclear safeguards, and it is important to note that the inspections only form one part of the overall safeguard regime.
The establishment of effective accountancy and control systems and the numerous reporting requirements were outlined in the pre-consultation draft regulations. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), the shadow Minister, noted in his eloquent way that the draft regulations came last Friday, but I feel that they were spiritually, if not physically, with him beforehand, and I believe that he read them comprehensively over the weekend. There are two people on whom I can rely to do that: the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State. I can also rely on myself, but we have dealt with my issues before, following what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey).
The regulations contain key components by which assurance can be gained and the UK can demonstrate broad equivalence with the current regime under Euratom. As such, the draft regulations demonstrate how we intend to create a domestic regime that will be of equivalent effectiveness when compared with the existing European arrangements. The initial drafts have been provided in a spirit of transparency to show how the regulations are developing and to provide an opportunity for early engagement with Parliament, industry and other stakeholders. We expect the draft regulations and the regime to continue to be developed before they are consulted on publicly. We want to ensure that the ONR’s safeguard inspectors are able to do their job. We want to ensure that they have the powers to do so, and we welcome constructive engagement with the draft regulations to ensure that that is the case.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions on amendment 4, which addresses the issue of consultation on and preparedness for the implementation of the new domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime established by the Bill. On consultation, the Government have had regular discussions with the nuclear industry since the referendum. In September, I held a representative industry stakeholder forum, which provided me and my team with an opportunity to hear the views and concerns of industry leaders, as mentioned today, and to provide them with an update on the progress of our preparations to leave Euratom. In December, I attended the Nuclear Industry Association annual event, where my officials provided a progress update on Euratom, including on the current status of international negotiations, the Bill and the capacity-building measures within the ONR. We are also engaging with civil society through our nuclear non-governmental organisation forum, which I attended last week—I was accused of being a tool of the Nuclear Industry Association—along with Members from both sides of the House, excluding the Scottish National party.
We will continue our constructive engagement with the nuclear stakeholder community, as we have done throughout the passage of the Bill and will continue to do throughout the Euratom negotiations. I have planned  a series of roundtables for 2018-19, and the next is scheduled for late next month. Officials at BEIS are working hard with the industry and other interested parties and are providing regular updates on progress, and the Government and industry are working together for the good of the country.
The National Audit Office plays an incredibly important role in all this, but mandatory consultation with it on nuclear safeguards regulations is not appropriate because the NAO already has an established process for scrutinising public spending for Parliament. We have worked with a range of governmental organisations as we develop legislative proposals and will continue to engage with interested parties as the new regime is implemented. The public consultation on the draft regulations, which will take place this year, will not be the first opportunity for stakeholders to be made aware of the Government’s intentions nor will it be their only opportunity to provide the Government with their views.
I will now turn to the subject of the ONR’s capability and readiness, as mentioned in many contributions today. I understand and agree that Parliament must be assured of the ONR’s capability and readiness to take on these new responsibilities in relation to nuclear safeguards. I have consistently stated on Second Reading and in Committee that we will allocate the necessary funding for the ONR to set up this new domestic regime for civil nuclear safeguards. I disagree with the Prospect union’s view, expressed to hon. Members in Committee and elsewhere, that that is not the case.
The Department works closely with the ONR on a daily basis to ensure it will be in a position to take on the role and responsibilities required to help the UK’s domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime to meet international safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation standards when the Euratom arrangements no longer apply to the UK. We are monitoring the progress of the ONR’s delivery plans through our governance process to identify delivery risk and to work with the ONR on mitigating those risks.
We have been transparent about the costs and resources required to set up a domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime. In October 2017, we published estimates of what those costs will be in the explanatory notes to the Bill. The relevant section, “Financial implications of the Bill,” explains that the Department will allocate the necessary funding to the ONR—about £10 million to set up the regime, and ongoing costs of about £10 million a year. I assure the House that we are keeping the estimates under review as the details of the regime develop.
The ONR is in the process of developing an expanded safeguards function, which involves the recruitment and training of additional inspectors. The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), and others mentioned the two-year and five-year time periods. Some people with a lot of experience in this field are being recruited, and they clearly would need two years or less. The five-year period involves a very high level of training. It is not possible to generalise, but I accept that some people, such as apprentices and graduates, will require much longer to train.

Drew Hendry: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out, but can he give us an indication of what proportion of experienced staff, versus trainees, he intends to have within two years?

Richard Harrington: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information, not because I do not want to give it to him, but because I do not want inadvertently to mislead him. If I may, I will drop him a line over the next couple of days with the exact information, as I have just done on the number of people recruited to date, as mentioned in the first group of amendments—I think the figure was 11. I do not want to give a rough estimate on such an important question.
The recruitment campaign has been launched and will continue throughout this year.
I will briefly address the issue of timing, not of this speech, but of the assessment of readiness to implement a domestic safeguards regime on withdrawal, because it has been raised by several hon. Members. I have made it clear on several occasions that the Government are committed to establishing a robust domestic nuclear safeguards regime of a standard broadly equivalent to Euratom standards in order to retain public and trading partner confidence in the nuclear industry, about which we are very proud. We are working closely with the ONR to ensure it will be in a position to regulate this new regime.
Based on current progress, I believe we will be in a position to deliver a domestic regime to international standards by March 2019, if required, and that such a regime will be able to satisfy the International Atomic Energy Agency and our international trading partners.

John Woodcock: I listened carefully to what the Minister has just said, and he seems to be setting up the UK to follow a minimum of the IAEA standards, and not necessarily the higher Euratom standards. Is that the case?

Richard Harrington: No. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s version of what I have said. We want a Rolls-Royce standard, the best possible standard we can have.
The negotiations on implementation are due to begin in the spring and, as hon. Members know, we will be reporting to the House regularly on progress.
Let me turn to the Henry VIII power. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has mentioned his dislike for Henry VIII powers. This is a tiny Henry VIII power—a Henry VIII who has been on a diet for a long time—that is limited to amending references in the Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act 1978, the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000 and the Nuclear Safeguards (Notification) Regulations 2004 in order to accommodate safeguards agreements with the IAEA. Those amended references will enable the IAEA to carry out its activities in the UK, including by providing legal cover for the UK activities of its inspectors. We have to be able to update that legislation so that it contains the correct references for new safeguards arrangements with the IAEA, which have not yet been made but will be in the near future. Without amendment, the existing provisions will become ineffective when the current agreements no longer apply, which would leave us in breach of any new international safeguards regime.
The detailed amendments will not be known until the agreements are in place, so the power that we are asking for is essential if we are to ensure that the UK has a safeguards regime that complies with its future international obligations when Euratom’s safeguards arrangements  no longer apply. It is a very narrow power and I do not think that it is relevant to the general discussions that the House has had on Henry VIII powers. I hope that Members on both sides of the House are satisfied and that they will not seek to press their amendments.

Alan Whitehead: I have listened carefully to the Minister this afternoon and would like to thank him for the constructive way he took the Bill through Committee. My personal view is that that is how we should legislate in practice. He has played a substantial part in making the process as good as it could be. However, just as I do not blame him personally for the fact that his football team recently scored a completely illegal goal—it was hand-balled—against my team and deprived it of two points, I do not blame him for the way the Bill has been constructed. He has attempted to justify parts of it that he is unable to amend, but nevertheless their construction, in my view, remains deeply unsatisfactory.
I am happy to withdraw amendment 1 and not to press the amendments that relate to the staffing and funding of the ONS—the Secretary of State has committed himself to reporting quarterly on progress with Euratom, which was the subject of one of our amendments in Committee, for which I am grateful—but I will press amendment 5 to a vote, because it relates to the Henry VIII clauses, which are a fundamental defect in the structure of the Bill. We wish to put it on the record that we would not wish such arrangements to be proceeded with under other circumstances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2

Power to amend legislation relating to nuclear safeguards

Amendment proposed: 5,in clause 2, page4,line13, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State may only exercise powers under this section at the point at which amendment of any of the legislation in subsection (1) becomes necessary in order to complete the process of transposition of responsibility for nuclear safeguarding from EURATOM to the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and for no other purpose.
(1B) Upon exercising the power set out in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the operation of the power.”—(Dr Whitehead.)
This amendment would limit circumstances under which the Secretary of State may exercise certain powers in this section and requires a report to be laid before Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 254, Noes 295.

Question accordingly negatived.
Third Reading

Greg Clark: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
May I begin by thanking right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their constructive contributions during the Bill’s parliamentary stages to date? I thank everyone who has worked on it, including those who served on the Bill Committee, the House authorities, the experts who gave oral evidence at  Committee, my indefatigable officials, who have worked very hard and effectively on the Bill, and the organisations that took the time to provide expert written evidence.
May I also thank and commend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), for his skill and application in steering the Bill through the House? There is no need for him to sing his own praises; they should be sung loudly and clearly from this Front Bench, and I think that that sentiment is shared by Members on both sides of the House.
May I also join in the commendation of the efforts of the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who have been thoughtful and insightful, and who helped to improve the Bill during the Committee stage? As my hon. Friend the Minister said, they have applied the principles of constructive opposition to their scrutiny of this very important Bill, and that has helped to bring it to this stage in our proceedings.
Let me briefly remind the House why the Bill is so necessary and firmly in the national interest. The nuclear sector is not only important to the future of energy in this country, but has important applications in research and industry. My Department has been working very closely with the industry to make sure that our shared interests are reflected in arrangements as we leave Euratom. The Bill helps to provide the required certainty and clarity to support our ambitions.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill ensures that when the United Kingdom is no longer a member of Euratom, we will have in place a legal framework that enables us to establish a domestic nuclear safeguards regime that meets international nuclear safeguards and non-proliferation standards. Nuclear safeguards, as the House now well knows, are the reporting and verification processes that nuclear states use to demonstrate to the international community that civil nuclear material is not diverted into military or weapons programmes. The Bill ensures that the United Kingdom can put in place the regime to enable the Office for Nuclear Regulation to oversee nuclear safeguards following withdrawal from Euratom.
To ensure continued international verification and oversight of our safeguards, we are, as my hon. Friend the Minister made clear throughout our proceedings, in discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency to agree replacement voluntary safeguards agreements that reflect the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom. The Bill gives us the ability to implement those new safeguards and the domestic regime that underpins them.

John Woodcock: Following the Minister’s earlier answer, I was not entirely clear whether the Government are committed to Euratom standards from day one of this new regime, or looking at the de minimis of the International Atomic Energy Agency?

Greg Clark: We have been very clear. We see no problem with the standards that have obtained in Euratom, so our aim is to have complete continuity with those standards. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
Our intention is that the new regime should reflect the high standards that we expect. We want to establish a robust regime that provides coverage and effectiveness  equivalent to that currently provided by Euratom. That is our objective. It is clear that we need continuity and that we must work to avoid any break in our civil nuclear safeguards regime if we want to continue the success and prosperity of our industry.
As has been evidenced in today’s proceedings, we have listened to concerns raised throughout the passage of the Bill in the House. In the context of both this Bill and the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, we responded to a number of questions by publishing on 11 January a written ministerial statement that outlines the Government’s strategy and objectives in relation to Euratom. Our strategy is twofold: first, to seek through our negotiations with the European Commission a close association with Euratom; and, secondly and simultaneously, to put in place all necessary measures to ensure that the UK can operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state from day one.
After hearing the concerns raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central about enhancing parliamentary scrutiny, I have made a commitment to report back to Parliament every three months by way of further written statements about overall progress on Euratom, including in respect of negotiations. As we indicated in Committee, we remain committed to the open and transparent approach that has characterised our discussions on the Bill so far, including when we developed the regulations that set out the detail of the domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime.
In response to various amendments tabled in Committee, we have committed to continuing dialogue with the industry, the devolved Administrations and civil society. A series of stakeholder events and workshops will take place, in addition to the public consultation on the regulations that we intend will take place later in the year. Working closely with the ONR, we are in the process of producing two sets of draft regulations. In response to suggestions in Committee that the House would benefit from early scrutiny of the regulations, a pre-consultation draft of the regulations, with an explanatory covering note, was provided to Parliament, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said. The draft regulations will go through a full consultation so that they can be exhaustively examined, so we expect them to continue to evolve in response to comment from, and consideration by, stakeholders and, of course, Parliament itself. We make a commitment to work with Members on both sides of the House and people outside Parliament to make sure that the regulations reflect the best possible advice.
The swift progress of the Bill, and the supportive discussions in the House about it, have aided our negotiations with the EU, the IAEA and third countries. We have already held several rounds of discussions on Euratom issues in the first phase of the negotiations with the EU, and there has been good progress. Negotiations with the IAEA on future voluntary agreements for the application of civil nuclear safeguards have also been constructive, and substantial progress has been made. It is expected that these new agreements will be put to the IAEA board of governors for ratification later this year. Negotiations on nuclear co-operation agreements have also proceeded significantly. In particular, constructive progress has already been made in negotiations with key partners, such as the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan.
In the light of all this, I am grateful to the House for the scrutiny it has given to the Bill and the expert eye it has cast over it. The broad cross-party consensus that we have seen sends an important signal to our international partners that the United Kingdom will absolutely remain a leading and responsible nuclear state. It allows us to reassure the United Kingdom’s very important nuclear industry and the nuclear research community that we absolutely remain committed to supporting them to maintain the United Kingdom’s status as a world leader. Taking early action to have ready a domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime is both responsible and in the national interest, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: This is an important and necessary Bill, as the Secretary of State confirmed, to ensure that a contingency is available should the Government’s negotiations with the European Union and Euratom fail. That was why we did not oppose it on Second Reading, and it is why we will not oppose it on Third Reading tonight.
That does not mean, however, that we do not continue to have concerns about the Government’s approach and about whether there was any necessity at all for the Bill. On Second Reading, I made the case that it should be possible—or would have been possible—to retain the UK’s membership, or to secure a close association with Euratom that would allow the continuation of nuclear safeguarding. The Opposition still think that continued membership of Euratom or a close associate status is both achievable and necessary for the most efficient continued working of a whole raft of procedures relating to the nuclear industry, not just to safeguarding.
I am pleased that the Government seem to have acknowledged that negotiating a close association would be the best outcome for our nuclear industry and that Bill does not constitute a replacement for all Euratom’s functions. The Secretary of State’s written statement on 11 January set out that the Government’s strategy was to
“seek a close association with Euratom and to include Euratom in any implementation period negotiated as part of our wider exit discussions”.
It went on to say that the
“exact nature of the period will be subject to forthcoming negotiations”.—[Official Report, 11 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 9-10WS.]
Given that statement, I wonder why the Government did not accept a number of Labour’s proposals: new clause 1, which would simply have asked the Secretary of State to “seek to secure” a transition period during which the UK could secure an association with Euratom, or indeed build any domestic capability; and new clause 2, which would have established that the provisions of the Bill are contingency arrangements if it proves impossible to establish an association with Euratom.
I point out that we could have been more legally robust in our language, especially in new clause 1. We could, for example, have used the words “best endeavours”, but we appreciate the issues that the Secretary of State faces and would have given him the opportunity simply of saying that he would try to secure a transitional period. We are sad that new clause 1 was not accepted today, but none the less I appreciate that the Secretary  of State has listened somewhat to Labour’s concerns and promised to report back every three months about overall progress on Euratom in the EU negotiations. As three months from the first statement will be 11 April, which is in the middle of the Easter recess, I look forward to receiving an update on 29 March.
My Front-Bench colleagues have argued that a transitional agreement is vital if we are to ensure that the UK is physically able to provide a functioning domestic safeguarding regime. The evidence taken by the Public Bill Committee highlighted that particular concern of the industry. Dr Golshan of the ONR said:
“given our membership of Euratom, it has not been necessary for the UK and ONR to build capacity and resilience in this area.”
She added:
“a transitional arrangement will be extremely helpful.”
That is not least because the training of inspectors takes several years, as outlined by the representatives of Prospect and Unite the union. Indeed, when she was asked about training, Dr Golshan said:
“We have started that process, but it is a long road and I am not going to sit here and pretend that it is all going to be a smooth run.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 5-9, Q3, 8 and 16.]
We have ongoing concerns about the timely replacement of inspectors, so we urge Ministers to agree a transitional arrangement to prevent full obligations from being placed on an unready ONR. The Government did not see fit to accept amendment 4, which would have required the Secretary of State to declare that the ONR had the resources necessary to take on extra responsibilities for nuclear safeguarding in the UK, but I hope they will listen to this plea.
I will say a little word on the powers that the Bill will hand to the Government—the very small Henry VIII provisions, as they were referred to previously. The Minister did not see fit to accept our amendments that attempted to curtail the executive powers conferred by the Bill, but he promised to publish regulations ahead of Report. He did indeed publish those regulations, but not until Friday afternoon—beyond the deadline to table any further amendments to the Bill. I would just like to put on record that although I welcome the publication of the regulations, the timing was rather cheeky and not altogether in the spirit of the constructive approach that both sides have taken to the Bill.
I associate myself with the words of the Secretary of State in thanking all who have spoken throughout our consideration of the Bill, as well as all members of the Public Bill Committee. I want to thank the Front-Bench teams, including the Secretary of State and the Minister. I think it is fair to say that they have been in listening mode. I especially thank my Labour colleagues, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who have worked diligently on the finer details of all things relating to nuclear safeguarding. Finally, I want to thank the Public Bill Office and the Clerks for all their tremendous support, as ever.

James Heappey: I sense that the Bill is accelerating towards the other place, so I will not speak for long. I congratulate Front Benchers on both sides of the House and all who have spoken in our debates. As with so many debates on energy in this place, there has been broad consensus, with disagreement about small details around the edges. It is pleasing to be part of such a  constructive approach to an important area of policy without partisan divides getting in the way, as they sometimes do in other areas of policy.
The nuclear industry has cultivated a small but perfectly formed and enthusiastic band of representatives in this place. Colleagues on both sides of the House have enjoyed the industry’s hospitality and benefited from its briefing in order that we might understand the issue, which is important for the industry, and have scrutinised the legislation in the House to ensure that it meets the industry’s aims.
I am glad that the Bill has not been amended today, because I think it does exactly what it should be doing in the first place. It is vital that we maintain the safeguards and reputation of the nuclear industry. It is an industry in which even the smallest mistake is unacceptable, and we in this country have a fine reputation for delivering almost immaculate standards of safety, so it is right that Members on both sides of the House want to be reassured that, when dealing with the important issue of our membership of Euratom, absolutely no compromises are made over safeguarding and the safety of the industry.
The Government have been clear, as has the EU, that the treaties of the EU and Euratom are so intertwined that it is impossible to remain a member of Euratom while leaving the EU. Some Opposition Members, who are no longer in their places, made the point earlier that we should at least seek to remain in Euratom. I do not disagree—I think that would be the best possible outcome—but what I do disagree with is the idea that, in amending the Bill to secure that commitment, we should take a bit of a long shot on what has been unachievable for many other countries that are not within the EU, at the cost of providing the industry with what it has been so clear with us that it wants. I am glad that we have not done that, and I have every confidence that the Secretary of State and his team will seek, if not full membership, the closest possible thing to it that is allowable while meeting the terms of our wider Brexit ambitions. I am also glad that, since I spoke on Second Reading, when there was a great deal of rather unfortunate debate about things such as medical isotopes, such fake news has disappeared from the debate and we are all now much clearer about what the Bill does and does not impact on.
The nuclear industry is of huge importance to this country and my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), in his lengthy remarks earlier, mentioned the importance of nuclear to our energy mix. He is not in the Chamber to hear the answer to his question, but I believe that about 25% of our energy needs today are provided by nuclear, either within the United Kingdom or through our interconnection with France. That is an important contribution, and until we can fully unlock the potential of energy storage, demand response and other flexibility measures, that provision of base-load is absolutely essential to the industrial powerhouse of our nation, so we should support the industry.
We must also ensure—this is the one constituency point I want to cheekily make on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the industrial opportunity of the new nuclear programme genuinely benefits the places in which that nuclear fleet is being built. We must ensure that not just things such as catering companies, accommodation and transport, but meaningful engineering,  technology and high skills-based industries, are included in the supply chain for the construction of the new nuclear fleet. Somerset needs more than a fantastic caterer as a legacy of the construction of Hinkley.
The only other point that has come out today that needs to be underlined is that the chairwoman of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and other Opposition Members said that there was some debate about whether the ONR would be ready on day one to deliver the standards that Euratom has required of our industry. My response to their concern is not that we should legislate to mitigate the threat, but that we should encourage those on the Front Bench to lean on the ONR and support it in every way possible to ensure that it has the capacity to deliver such safeguarding on the first day of its responsibilities.
That is all that I wish to say, apart from congratulating Ministers on their stewardship of the Bill. The Secretary of State, who I am delighted is still in the Chamber, the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth and the Under-Secretary are enthusiastic fellow travellers on our route to a zero-carbon energy system. I am glad that they have brought this important piece of legislation through the House, and I am glad that it will not be opposed on Third Reading. I look forward to working with Front Benchers and colleagues on both sides of the House on other energy policy Bills in the future.

Drew Hendry: If power over these issues, as they affect Scotland, were in the purview of the Scottish Parliament, I am certain that Scotland would be staying within Euratom. However, here we are, and this Bill is going through this House. The Minister knows that I respect him on this issue; he has tried to engage with me very positively, and I thank him for doing that.
I would like to say that the Government and the Secretary of State have written in some checks, but I see no evidence of any. However, I do see hopes, promises and assurances. In the fullness of time, the Government will be judged on what happens to nuclear safeguards when their agency is set up and on how well it performs. For the sake of the industry, the safeguards and the people involved in it, I hope that it is a success.

Trudy Harrison: The Bill is absolutely essential to the nuclear industry. Without it, after we leave the European Union, our nuclear industry would collapse. As I said earlier, it would be economically crushing not to have a safeguards regime in place. That would have catastrophic implications for every part of the country, which would be felt across the whole sector.
Following the construction and successful commissioning of the world’s first nuclear power station—Calder Hall, in my constituency, back in 1957—Euratom was formed by the Euratom treaty. It was as important then as it is now to apply civil nuclear safeguards in the UK. The UK has committed, as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to have nuclear safeguards in place—a clear demonstration to the international community that civil nuclear material is used only for civil activities.
The Bill enables the UK to set up a domestic safeguards regime to meet our international commitments on safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation standards.  Without the Bill, the movement of materials, fuel—including spent fuel—and components, and even the conversations about materials, fuel and components, could not take place.
Euratom provides the basis for the regulation of civilian nuclear activity in the UK, including fuel supply, waste management and co-operation between nuclear states. It implements a system of safeguards, controls the supply of fissile materials in Euratom member states, guarantees high safety standards and funds international research into nuclear fission and fusion. It is also critical for nuclear co-operation across the world.
In a community such as mine, where the income of 55% of the population depends directly or indirectly on work in the nuclear industry, and in our country, where more than 20% of energy is generated by nuclear power plants, not having measures in place as we leave the EU and Euratom would be unthinkable. An effective safeguards regime is necessary for Sellafield’s operations, for the low level waste repository’s business, for the national nuclear laboratory’s research and for the development of Moorside, the new-build nuclear power plant that is expected to be constructed adjacent to Sellafield. All of that is in Copeland.
I have visited 70-something businesses in my constituency, including large global operations now based in Copeland—some of the biggest names in international industry—and our many small and medium-sized enterprises to listen to their concerns and ambitions for the future. Each and every one is wholly dependent on being able to trade globally. Those businesses are not just critical to that sector, but integral to the socioeconomic fabric of daily life. Of the 1,020 apprenticeships that were started last year, the vast majority were in industry and engineering connected with our nuclear sector. But it goes further: those companies are proud, passionate parts of our society, donating to charities, supporting local organisations and providing enormous socioeconomic benefits. I am proud to say that tomorrow, Sellafield is sponsoring “A Taste of Cumbria” in the Jubilee Room here in Parliament, such is its commitment to its community and county.
I cannot emphasise sufficiently strongly how vital the Bill is for Copeland and Cumbria, and indeed for the whole country. I was delighted that the Government committed further to the Joint European Torus and the international thermonuclear experimental reactor projects. The Bill is equally necessary for research and development and for science and innovation.
Our nuclear industry is an international marketplace, which means that we need in place not only domestic regulations but bilateral agreements with countries such as the US, Japan, Kazakhstan and Canada—the list goes on. We cannot even begin to discuss bilateral agreements without there being a domestic safeguards regime in place. We need one to carry out decommissioning work across the country and to consider exporting the skills and products being developed. It is estimated that overseas reactor decommissioning will total £250 billion over coming decades, according to the Government’s “The UK’s Nuclear Future” document.
The Calder Hall reactor I referred to earlier now requires decommissioning. This is a fantastic opportunity for the sector not just to benefit from the skills and experience gained from decommissioning but to leverage wider UK, European and worldwide decommissioning.  The iconic golf ball structure at Sellafield, the Windscale advanced gas-cooled reactor, was the prototype power reactor for the 14 EDF Energy AGRs, which currently supply about one fifth of the UK’s electricity. Its core heat exchangers and associated equipment have all been safely decommissioned and removed, thanks to Government-funded projects, demonstrating that a power reactor can be successfully decommissioned.
I hope that Calder Hall can be decommissioned as a priority and a new breed of small modular reactors installed in its place to ensure that we are at the forefront of nuclear technological developments once again. Small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors offer the chance for UK nuclear expertise and manufacturing to lead the world, but we need the Bill to ensure that we are globally compliant with safeguarding, in addition to security and safety.
On the role of the ONR, it is important to understand the differences between safeguarding, security and safety, all of which are critical to the secure and compliant running of our civil nuclear industry. Currently, the ONR has responsibility for safety and oversees the civil nuclear constabulary with regard to security. Bringing responsibility for safeguarding under this one organisation would seem to bring benefits of shared knowledge and skills and combined experience. The ONR is an independent regulator that was made a statutory public body under the Energy Act 2013, which sets out its role, functions and powers.
International oversight will be a key part of the future regime, so I am pleased that the UK is seeking to conclude new arrangements with the IAEA. It is absolutely vital that the IAEA retain its right to inspect all civil nuclear facilities and continue to receive all current safeguards reporting. That will ensure that international verification of our safeguards activity continues to be robust. We must retain our reputation for excellence to ensure that companies in other countries, such as KEPCO in South Korea, which we anticipate will become the new owner of NuGen, want to do business with us.
Our country is a pioneer and global leader in this area and has an enviable safety record. The Centre of Nuclear Excellence in my constituency and all the businesses and livelihoods that are utterly reliant upon an effective safeguarding regime need this Bill. I hope that the UK will continue to play a leading role in the development of international nuclear security and safety standards, including through the IAEA, and I commend the Government’s work thus far. In particular, I would like to thank the Secretary of State, the Minister and his team for answering questions put to me by my community and businesses, including some that have trained up Euratom safeguards inspectors—such is the level of expertise in Copeland. I commend the Bill and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak.

Layla Moran: I find it hard to believe that we have finally got to this point, having attended every sitting on the Bill, apart from the Public Bill Committee. As a former physics teacher, I must say that it has been wonderful to hear so many Members talk about all things physics. That is always a pleasure.
I and the Liberal Democrats will, of course, be supporting the Bill, but I do have some questions that I hope the Minister will answer. I echo what has been said across  the House about the constructive way in which the Bill has gone through. I appreciate that. As a relatively new Member, this is how I imagined Bills would pass—with lots of conversations, concessions and so forth—so I thank him for that.
It seems to me that the House has achieved broad consensus on most parts of the Bill, and that the Bill is necessary as a contingency measure. I am all for having a contingency planning mechanism to deal with matters that are out of our control, but I think it worth my saying again that we did not have to be in this position. We did not have to leave Euratom—or, at least, the legal case is still being contested. If the Government have been told otherwise and it is set in stone, I ask them to release the legal advice, which would put that argument to bed.
My constituents, many of whom work in the industry, are still crying out for certainty and clarity, but time is running out. I know that the Minister disagrees with the Liberal Democrats’ position of wishing to stay in Euratom, but I urge him to reconsider. So much about the Brexit process seems to be groupthink at its worst. We can still change our mind, but if we are not going to do that, we should at the very least make the crucial admission that this is about the red line of the European Court of Justice. That is the critical issue: that is the main red line that we are not allowed to cross. It was a choice, not a fact, that that was a consequence of the referendum.
If the Government cannot or will not change their mind, I am reassured by what the Secretary of State said in a written statement earlier this month about seeking the closest possible associate membership, and by his warm words about the Joint European Torus and the international thermonuclear experimental reactor—not least because those contracts will be worth billions to the UK over the next few decades and are vital to the local economy, particularly in the Abingdon area of my constituency. He also seeks
“open trade arrangements for nuclear goods”,
the ability to ensure that materials cross borders “without disruption”, and
“maintaining close…cooperation…on nuclear safety.”
It is true that Euratom does not directly govern the issue of radioisotopes, but the Minister will be well aware that I am still deeply concerned about the issue. The institution of “a” customs union, rather than “the” customs union, will put blocks at the border, and, because of the short half-lives involved, there will be disruption unless we are very clear about how we will mitigate it.
I look forward to the regular updates that the Minister has said he will give, but has he considered increasing their frequency, at least to begin with? One of my main concerns is that while the Brexit negotiations will continue until the start of next year, Austria will take over the presidency of Euratom very soon, and the heavy lifting really ought to be done before it takes the helm, because there will some problems for us. Will the Minister consider giving more frequent, earlier updates to let us know how the negotiations are going before Austria takes over? The issue is causing a huge amount of consternation throughout the industry, and throughout the House.
As the Minister knows, to ensure that the JET has a future we need to guarantee the 2018-19 work programme by the middle of this year. Again, I should like some updates on how we are to achieve that. It is not just  about the money; it is also about ensuring that nuclear scientists have full access to the schemes in the future, not just in the next two years but in the next five and 10. We also need some assurances, albeit not from the Minister’s Department, about the movement of nuclear scientists. Those assurances are not yet written in stone, but this matters to the scientists, because they are extremely saleable.
I accept that the Bill is needed, because it is better for us to be safe than sorry, but I wish that we did not have to do this at all.

Maggie Throup: I congratulate the ministerial team on their successful navigation, which has allowed the Bill to reach this stage. It is a key piece of legislation that will safeguard Britain’s international reputation as a responsible nuclear state once we have left Euratom. I believe that there is potential for significant inward investment in the UK in the post-Brexit era. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) about the impacts that the nuclear industry already has in this country, but I think that we can do more.
The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that they will work to establish a close and effective working relationship with Euratom once the UK leaves the organisation, including close association on matters such as research, training and trade. Ministers have made no secret of their ambitions for the nuclear sector, and I support those ambitions. We have an opportunity for some of the UK’s leading companies to be at the forefront of world-leading new nuclear technology.
During the Bill’s passage, Ministers have been consistent in reassuring the House that leaving Euratom in no way diminishes the UK’s nuclear ambition. The announcement by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), in December of a new £86 million fund to establish a national fusion technology platform demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to nuclear research and development, which will be welcomed by a number of my constituents who work in the nuclear sector.
The launch of the small modular reactor competition in 2016 is another example of the importance the Government attach to the UK’s civil nuclear industry to provide a secure, clean and affordable source of domestic electricity that can also be exported overseas. The UK small modular reactor consortium, led by Rolls-Royce, estimates that the design, development and production of a fleet of small modular reactors would create up to 40,000 skilled nuclear supply chain jobs and add over £100 billion to our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said, our young people need to know that there is a future in the industry; they need that certainty to start on their career pathway. As the centre of Rolls-Royce’s nuclear operation in the UK, Derby has the potential to become a world leader in new nuclear technology, with the potential benefits extending across the wider region, including to my constituency. I will therefore follow closely the progress of the small modular reactor competition in the coming weeks and months.
The Bill will strengthen the UK as an independent global nuclear power, reflecting the Government’s ambitions for the sector.

Rebecca Pow: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and all other colleagues who have spoken today in what I am sure everyone agrees has been a fascinating cross-party discussion. I want to contribute to debate because the Bill deals with a crucial issue that affects every single one of us and the safety of our nation. Getting the agenda and the legal framework right as we take the historic step of exiting the EU is imperative, because leaving the EU means also leaving Euratom—the European Atomic Energy Community—the body that sets the nuclear safeguards regime.
The Bill gives us the tools to ensure that an effective nuclear safeguards regime is established, enabling us to continue to meet international standards for nuclear safety, while maintaining the UK’s reputation as a responsible nuclear state. I have raised the question how we cope with leaving Euratom since the start of the discussions on EU withdrawal, always stressing that leaving the EU must not result in a weakening of our nuclear safeguards, on which we all rely and which are instantly recognisable on the global stage. I have often referred to the matter in wider speeches on the environment, because it is all related to the environment and is so important to us all.
I am confident that the Government have made it clear that future nuclear safeguards arrangements will continue to provide the quality, safety and robustness provided under Euratom and that we will continue to co-operate on standards. Our domestic regime will meet our international commitments on safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation standards. It is clear that the amendments proposed today—I listened carefully to the speeches made—would add nothing and lead only to delay and even obfuscation, especially the amendments relating to the transition period and an association with Euratom, which, as many colleagues have pointed out, simply is not possible.
The ONR, which already regulates nuclear safety and security, is the obvious route. It is also important to keep legislation relating to nuclear safeguards updated as they change on the international stage. The Bill will give the Secretary of State powers to do just that by updating existing international agreements once new agreements are reached.
Our nuclear industry is second to none on the world stage. It has a fine reputation, which we must maintain. Our standards have been a major draw in attracting investors to the nuclear industry in this country. Obviously, I am going to cite the Hinkley Point example, with its Chinese investment. One of the reasons that the Chinese want to engage with us is that we have very high standards on nuclear. That shows us off well on the wider stage and reflects well on us. Hinkley Point is the largest development site in the whole of Europe. I liken it to a James Bond film set. It is absolutely unbelievable how huge the development is. It needs to be seen to be believed. In energy terms, the power station will deliver 7% of our baseload energy, and it is low carbon, which  is exactly the kind of energy that we are promoting, alongside all the other renewables. It is a clean source of energy.
Hinkley Point is not in my constituency but adjacent to it, and it has a massive knock-on effect for the people in Taunton Deane, from managers to engineers and from bus drivers to the caterers mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey). Ultimately, 26,000 people will be employed on the site. The industry is spawning many other jobs and creating a whole generation of nuclear businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash mentioned that she had a similar situation in her constituency with her micro-nuclear plants.
The first nuclear degree is operating partly from University Centre Somerset, which is in Taunton in my constituency. It is sponsored by EDF and the Ministry of Defence. It is critical that the industry should grow and enable all the young people who are doing this training to have a future. That is why the Bill is so important. We need the right checks and balances, so that we can go forward into a really positive future and be a world-leading industry. In mirroring Euratom, we are going to regulate civilian nuclear activity in the UK, including fuel supply, waste management—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison)—and co-operation between nuclear states, which will be essential. I am confident that, through the ONR, we will achieve that, as well as new agreements with the IAEA.
I want briefly to touch on the subject of radioisotopes, because it has been raised with me by constituents. I welcome the cross-party work that is going on to ensure that there is no interruption in the continuity of supply of radioisotopes as we exit the EU. The Government are rightly listening on this. There seems to have been a lot of scaremongering, which is frankly not helpful. On nuclear research, the UK is a world leader in promising nuclear fusion technologies and we must maintain that lead. We must have the arrangements that the Government are negotiating, so that we can continue to participate on the world stage and attract the right nuclear brains to this country. I fully support the Bill. Nuclear safety and security are issues that deserve the utmost attention, and I am sure that the Bill will achieve its aims and set the Rolls-Royce standards mentioned by the Minister. I am optimistic that we will get the right system in place to keep us all safe.

Stephen Kerr: I shall make just a few brief comments. I paid my compliments earlier to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), and I also want to pay tribute to the Minister, who has conducted the passage of this Bill with great aplomb, dignity and good humour. That has been much appreciated. Like the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), I have attended all the debates on the Bill in the Chamber and in Committee. As a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, under the very able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), I have also had the benefit of attending several hearings at which we received evidence on this subject.
Leaving Euratom is actually a matter of some regret for me and probably for many Members on both sides of the House. I am not one of those people who  supports the Government’s programme of leaving the European Union without appreciating that some aspects of being part of the EU have been intensely beneficial to the United Kingdom, and nuclear safeguarding is without question one of those areas. I therefore hope that Members will recognise that the Bill is a plan B in case we are unable to remain in some way associated with Euratom.
Euratom is at the heart of our nuclear industry and has not only the skills and expertise but the experience to be of service to our nuclear industry, which is a complex field. Nuclear energy is a vital part of our energy mix, offering baseload capacity for the energy market. As such, the Bill is vital to ensure that we meet our international obligations as we leave the EU. Although such things form a vital part of the reasoning behind safeguarding in this industry, it is not a luxury; nor is it simply a health and safety matter. Our international obligations under non-proliferation treaties make our leadership in this area as a world power a significant issue, and as a leader, the UK must meet its obligations. We secure the moral authority to stand up to rogue states and to nations that have a different view of non-proliferation through our safeguarding regime. We must not forget just how much safety concerns matter in this sector. The consequences of getting something wrong would have ramifications not only for us, but perhaps for generations to come. Having a strong safeguarding regime in place, which is what the Bill provides, is absolutely vital for the health and prosperity of the industry and of our economy. I therefore unreservedly support the Bill on Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE (RELIEF FROM NON-DOMESTIC RATES) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10 July 2017 (Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today's sitting.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Jo Churchill.)
Question agreed to.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE (RELIEF FROM NON-DOMESTIC RATES) BILL

Consideration of Lords amendments

Eleanor Laing: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1 to 13. If any Lords amendment is agreed to, Mr Speaker will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
I also remind the House that certain of the motions relating to the Lords amendments will be certified as relating exclusively to England and Wales, as set out on the selection list. If the House divides on any certified motion, a double majority will be required for the motion to be passed.
Clause 1

Relief from local non-domestic rates: occupied hereditaments

Rishi Sunak: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Eleanor Laing: With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 13.

Rishi Sunak: It is an honour to begin my first Bill as a Minister. The Government have been and remain relentless in our pursuit of seeing every home in Britain provided with a decent broadband connection. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) is not in his place, which is a first for a broadband debate in this Chamber in recent times, but thanks to the good work he started, by the end of last year around 95% of premises had superfast broadband.
Under the universal service obligation introduced by this Government, every home in Britain will gain access to a high-speed connection within the next three years. That goal is indispensable to creating a cohesive, modern and economically vibrant Britain, and this Bill is another important step in ensuring we achieve just that.
At the autumn statement in 2016 the Chancellor announced a rate relief scheme for new telecom fibre. The relief will apply for five years, retrospectively from 1 April 2017, and it forms part of a wider package of support for digital infrastructure worth £1.1 billion.
The Bill provides us with the powers needed to introduce the relief scheme, and the relief itself will be introduced by technical regulations. In September 2017 we published detailed draft regulations for consultation. My Department is now considering responses to that consultation and is holding further discussions with stakeholders on the details. I am pleased to report to the House that the responses have been very positive, and I can therefore confirm that we will be ready to introduce the relief scheme shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
As hon. Members will recall, the Bill received wide- spread support when it was considered by the House last year, and that support continued through the debates  in the Lords. The Lords amendments make a helpful improvement by ensuring the five-year relief period appears in the Bill, as Opposition parties called for and as welcomed by my ministerial colleague Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. The amendments will give telecom operators the added assurance that the relief scheme will operate for five years.
The amendments will still allow us to extend the period of the rate relief beyond five years, if we wish, through secondary legislation. Stakeholders wished to see that ability retained in the Bill, and it means that if the Chancellor wants to repeat or extend the relief scheme, we can do so quickly without a further Bill but still with the approval of Parliament. As a tax measure, it will of course be for the Chancellor to decide in the future if such a repetition or extension is desirable.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Jim McMahon: I congratulate the new Minister on his promotion. I look forward to working with him on matters of common interest such as local government finance, which is a niche subject that does not always attract wide attention, but it is important, and it is important that we see reform. I made that offer to his predecessor, and most of the issues are not partisan at all. They are technocratic but essential, and if there is room for us to work together, we should seek to do so.
I am pleased to see the Bill return having been amended in the Lords, and I am pleased that the Government have received the amendments in the way they have. As we have seen in our debates, this is not necessarily a subject that gets Members excited or that results in mass attendance, but the people who do attend understand how important it is. This financial relief is intended to ensure that as many parts of England and Wales as possible benefit from high-speed fibre broadband. A financial incentive is an important mechanism for achieving some of that.
We were very probing in Committee and, unsurprisingly, we will be looking to see how the Bill works in practice. In particular, can we ensure that this is not just a tax relief for the big providers and that it gets to the smaller providers, too? Can we ensure it has a net effect on the extension of fibre broadband, or will it basically provide a subsidy for installations that would have happened regardless? Have we been able to reach a position where the providers themselves are satisfied that the Bill goes some way towards balancing the revaluation that they met with a degree of concern? I read recently in the Financial Times that BT and Virgin had hinted at the possibility of considering legal action against the revaluation, and I am interested to know the outcome.
Fundamentally, the Bill does two things. First, it rescues an element of the Finance Bill that fell when the election was called. The Bill contained many important reforms that were not contentious or party political but would have allowed local government finance to catch up with the changing times. I encourage the Minister to look at other provisions in the Bill to see what else could be brought forward to benefit local government.
Secondly, the measure proves that the Government can look at financial incentives for business growth, but business rates, of course, cover a wide range of  business activity. It has been a long-standing criticism that we have not yet managed to address the impact of the treatment of plant and machinery, for instance, on business investment in new technologies and in new plant and machinery in those premises.
That has also been a concern on our high streets. When banks and building societies close, they are often the only provider of a cash machine in town. When a local convenience store agrees to take on the cash machine, it generally finds itself in a worse position at the end, despite providing a community service, because the turnover at the cashpoint will count towards its rateable value.
I raise those two points because I think there is a demand in industry and the community to ensure that business rates add value to our communities, rather than detract from them. As we embark on Brexit, we need to ensure that our country is in the most robust position possible to attract investment and ensure that we have strong infrastructure.
Finally, I pay tribute to Members in the other place, particularly Lord Kennedy, who spent a great deal of time on the issue and was involved in amendment 2. Let us see whether it makes a difference on the ground, because we pass legislation here not for the sake of it, but to make a material difference to public policy and the community. I will be waiting with interest to see whether this has a net effect on infrastructure investment.

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for his kind words of welcome. He has a long and distinguished track record in local government, and I very much look forward to working with him in the constructive manner he outlined. He made a couple of points that I would like to address briefly. The first point was about who is eligible for the relief. As he knows, it is available for any company deploying new fibre. One of the expectations and hopes for the relief is that it will bring more alternative and smaller providers into the market. We will be watching that closely, as I know he will, because we would all welcome a broader diversity of suppliers.
The hon. Gentleman made a good point about the relief being gamed, and ensuring that it is targeted specifically at new fibre deployments. That was raised in the Commons stages by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), and indeed in the other place by Baroness Harding of Winscombe. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that, following those exchanges, my Department worked extensively with Gamma Telecom and Ofcom to conduct a detailed study of the potential for the relief to be gamed. The results of that analysis clearly support the conclusion that, based on the evidence available to date, neither the Government nor Ofcom expect the rate relief for new fibre to give rise to gaming in the system. Without going into the details, simply the cost of deploying new fibre, withdrawing dark fibre, opening up the ducts and then reconnecting everything would in almost all cases be more expensive that the saving from business rates.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned other measures in the Local Government Finance Bill and the importance of ensuring that we have a business rates system that supports economic growth. I wholeheartedly agree with him and am keen to use the opportunity for the business rates reset, the revaluation and the fair funding formula  to ensure that our financial system does indeed support local authorities in their aspirations to grow their local economies.
I put on record my thanks to Members in the other place and, of course, the officials who brought me up to speed on the legislation incredibly quickly. I also thank my predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who did so much to get the Bill to the point at which we are in a position to approve it. As I have said, demands on broadband are doubling every couple of years. It is vital that we stay ahead of that need and move quickly to implement the relief scheme that has been promised. I am delighted that we are making good progress on the draft regulations, which will be implemented swiftly. I am grateful to Members in this House and in the other place for the swift progress we have made. This is only one small part of the Government’s strategy, but it is an important one called for by all stakeholders.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.
Lords amendments 2 to 13 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.

INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS AUTHORITY

[Relevant document: The Second Report of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority of 2017, Appointment of an IPSA Board Member, HC 679.]

Andrea Leadsom: I beg to move,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Jackie Smith to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years with effect from 19 February 2018.
The motion gives the House the opportunity to debate the recommendation agreed by the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The appointment has arisen following the conclusion of the term of Elizabeth Padmore. Members may be aware that the Speaker’s Committee has produced a report on this matter—its second report of 2017—in relation to the motion.
It may help if I set out the key points for the record. IPSA board members are appointed under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Under that Act, the Speaker is responsible for overseeing the selection of candidates for appointment to IPSA, and the names of any candidates to be members of IPSA must be approved by the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA. The 2009 Act states that at least one of IPSA’s members must be a person who has held, but no longer holds, high judicial office, within the meaning of part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005; that at least one of IPSA’s members must be a person who is qualified under schedule 3 to the National Audit Act 1983 to be an auditor for the National Audit Office; and that one of IPSA’s members—the parliamentary member—must be a person who has been, but is no longer, a Member of the House of Commons.
On this occasion, the vacancy on the board of IPSA was for a person not subject to any particular statutory requirements, to replace the outgoing board member, Elizabeth Padmore. Although Mr Speaker is not regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in making this appointment, he chooses to follow its recommended best practice in his supervision of appointments. As is normal for such appointments, Mr Speaker appointed a panel that conducted the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates. The panel was chaired by Mark Addison, the former civil service commissioner. The other members of the panel were: Ruth Evans, chair of IPSA; Shrinivas Honap, lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA; Meg Munn, former Member of Parliament for Sheffield, Heeley; and Michael Whitehouse, former chief operating officer at the National Audit Office.
The candidate recommended by the appointment board is Ms Jackie Smith, chief executive and registrar at the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The board considers that Ms Smith has been a successful chief executive, known for turning around organisations and delivering performance in a complex political environment. She also has extensive experience in regulation. As required under the 2009 Act, the appointment was approved by the Speaker’s Committee at its meeting in December.
If the appointment is made, Ms Smith will serve on IPSA for five years. Should the House support this appointment, I wish the individual well as she takes up her new post. I commend this motion to the House.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for what she has said. I wish to thank the independent panel appointed by Mr Speaker—the independent chair, Mark Addison; Ruth Evans, the IPSA chair; Shrinivas Honap, the lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA; Meg Munn, former MP for Sheffield, Heeley; and Michael Whitehouse, former chief operating officer of the National Audit Office—for its assiduous work in identifying possible candidates. I also wish to thank the outgoing IPSA board member, Elizabeth Padmore, for all her work.
The panel has been independent, transparent and diligent in its work. It was the panel’s unanimous view, which was endorsed by the Committee, to appoint Jackie Smith, who, as the Leader of the House has said, is currently the chief executive and registrar at the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and so has had experience in dealing with an organisation of more than 800 staff over five locations across the four countries of the United Kingdom. She was also head of investigation and lay affiliate for standards and fitness to practise at the General Medical Council. Ms Smith’s experience in regulation and delivering performance will serve her well.
The Opposition endorse the appointment of Jackie Smith to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and wish her well in her new role. She will be there from 19 February 2018 to 18 February 2023.
Question put and agreed to.

Electoral Commission

[Relevant document: Third Report of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission of 2017, Appointment of an Electoral Commissioner, HC 688.]

Andrea Leadsom: I beg to move,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Professor Sir Ian Kennedy as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 February 2018 for the period ending 31 January 2022.
As with the previous debate, the motion before us gives the House the opportunity to debate a recommendation that has been agreed, this time by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.
Electoral commissioners are appointed under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as amended by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. Under the Act, the Speaker’s Committee has a responsibility to oversee the selection of candidates for appointment to the Electoral Commission. Commissioners are appointed for a fixed term, but the Committee may recommend their re-appointment, where that is appropriate.
Hon. Members may know that the Speaker’s Committee has produced its third report of 2017 in relation to the motion. The Speaker’s Committee is not regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, but it has chosen to follow its recommended best practice in its supervision of appointments. The OCPA code of practice for appointments to public bodies, which was published in April 2012, provides that no reappointment may be made without a satisfactory performance appraisal.
The Speaker’s Committee was required to recruit a new electoral commissioner to replace the outgoing electoral commissioner, Toby Hobman. His term of office expired on 31 December 2017. Mr Hobman had been a commissioner since 2010, serving two terms.
As is normal for these appointments, Mr Speaker appointed a panel to conduct the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates. The panel was chaired by Joanna Place, chief operating officer at the Bank of England. The other panel members were Sir John Holmes, the chair of the Electoral Commission, and the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.
The independent panel was unanimous in its recommendation that Professor Sir Ian Kennedy be appointed. Sir Ian served as the first chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority from 2009 until 2016. Between 2002 and 2009, he was chairman of the Healthcare Commission, which was the first body to regulate the NHS. He has also chaired a number of reviews and inquiries across a spectrum of public life, including into xenotransplantation for the Department of Health, and into rabies and quarantine for the then Ministry of Agriculture.
The panel’s recommendation was endorsed by the Speaker’s Committee. Once the Committee has reached a decision, statute requires that the Speaker consults the leaders of political parties represented at Westminster on proposed appointments. The statutory consultation provides an opportunity for the party leaders to comment, but they are not required to do so. The responses to  consultation can be found in the appendix to the Speaker’s Committee’s report. No objections to Sir Ian’s appointment were received.
If this appointment is made, Sir Ian will serve as an electoral commissioner for four years. If the motion is agreed, I wish him well in his post. I commend the motion to the House.

Valerie Vaz: May I thank the Leader of the House for her comments? I also thank the chair of the independent panel, Joanna Place, and the other panel members, namely Sir John Holmes, the chair of the Electoral Commission, and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who is a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, for their work in identifying the candidates and going through the selection process. My thanks also go to the outgoing commissioner, Toby Hobman, who has served two terms since 2010.
The unanimous view of the panel was that Professor Sir Ian Kennedy should be appointed as an electoral commissioner. Sir Ian has been involved in public life for more than three decades. The Opposition therefore agree with the independent panel’s recommendation on the appointment of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy from 1 February 2018 to 31 January 2022.

James Duddridge: I will be brief, because I know that the House wants to move on quickly.
I oppose the motion. The Electoral Commission is an incredibly important body, and I ask Members to reflect on why the issue has been brought to the House. It is because it is for the full House to make a decision, rather than relying on our Front Benchers and the official channels.
I do not believe that Sir Ian Kennedy would be an appropriate appointment to the Electoral Commission. This gentleman is 76 now; he would be 80 at the end of his term. When he served on the Health Commission, he claimed £15,000 on taxis from north London to the job. Although our expenses system desperately needed to be reformed, I do not think that a single Member thinks that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is a system lacking in bureaucracy that could not be well reformed. I do not think he did a good job there. The Electoral Commission requires somebody who understands politics. All its existing members either understand politics—and he does not get that—or understand the media and have an idea of how to project the commission’s broader work. We are being asked to vote on this motion because we can legitimately have an opinion. I believe that that opinion should be that he is not a fit and proper person to serve, and I ask Members to vote in the No Lobby this evening.

Bridget Phillipson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. As the only Member of this House to serve on the appointments panel, and as a member of the Speaker’s Committee, I should like to make a short contribution setting out a bit more about the process mentioned by the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz).
I reiterate that the recruitment process that was followed was the same open, fair and transparent process that has been used in the past to recruit all electoral commissioners. It is also worth stressing that this appointment represents one of 10 places on the board, four of whom were nominated by the main political parties. As the Leader of the House set out, the appointments panel was composed of Joanna Place, the chief operating officer at the Bank of England, who served as our independent chair; Sir John Holmes, the chair of the Electoral Commission; and me, as the representative of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.
With the support of independent consultants, and following an open advertisement, a long list and short list were drawn up. Five very strong candidates were selected for interview, and following a comprehensive and lengthy interview process, the panel concluded that Professor Sir Ian Kennedy was the strongest candidate, and unanimously recommended his appointment. The Speaker’s Committee in turn then agreed with that recommendation. As we have heard, the leaders of all the main parties were consulted, and no objections were received.
I seek to reassure the House that this was a fair, open and transparent process that followed all the usual steps that should be followed and that were followed in previous processes. I am confident in the rigorous process that was followed, and as a panel we stand by our decision to recommend the appointment of Sir Ian Kennedy.

John Spellar: Like other colleagues, I shall not detain the House for long. Many relevant points have already been made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge).
I think that there is concern about this appointment. Quite apart from more general questions as to the role of the Electoral Commission and whether it is a body that has been losing its way, which is a wider debate for another day, we do need to look at this. Let us be frank: Sir Ian Kennedy, many colleagues feel, largely created the dreadful, anti-elected-Member, vindictive attitude that has permeated so much of IPSA, which has basically taken as its premise that it is there to make life difficult for Members of Parliament.
I have to say in all honesty to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who is an excellent Member of Parliament—I do not say that in any patronising way, but in a genuine way—that if Sir Ian Kennedy was the best candidate, I do wonder about the process through which we are undertaking appointments. We ought to look at how other countries run such electoral commissions. They have serving politicians who actually understand the current electoral system, rather than, as we do so often with such bodies in this country, putting it out to the great and the good, and the relentless quangocrats. When people read out the long list of quangos on which they have served, I regard it as a criticism rather than a commendation that they have constantly been on these public bodies, rather than, as used to be the case, people from industry on one side and from trade unions on the other who had much broader experience.
Why Sir Ian Kennedy, the arch-quangocrat? The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East mentioned Sir Ian Kennedy’s record at the Healthcare Commission. Many of those who were here at the time remember the  disdain with which IPSA, his organisation, treated Members who had difficult transport issues, family housing issues or disabilities. In the case of new Members who might have been inclined to give more slack to the organisation, I know that many of them, and their staff, have found dealing with it incredibly difficult, due to the amount of staff time that that takes, and its great obstructionism and very limited access. That stemmed from the culture imbued there at the start.
With that record, I do not think that Sir Ian Kennedy has shown the qualities and comprehension appropriate to this position, which involves dealing with those in elected office. Frankly, I hope that we will reject this appointment and do better next time.

Kirsty Blackman: I am one of the new members of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, as well as of the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA. It has been really illuminating to be part of those bodies and, in particular, to look at the rigorous appointment procedures that are gone through in advance of somebody being recommended to the House.
I am honestly quite baffled by some of the contributions that we have heard. I am shocked that anybody would suggest that somebody was too old to sit on this body, given the number of people just along the corridor who are significantly older than Professor Sir Ian Kennedy. Although I have used that line in criticising the House of Lords, I do not think that Members who support the House of Lords are in a position to do so.
The other thing I am confused about is why people seem to be unhappy about the gentleman’s extreme length of experience. In any other circumstances, people would be saying that such experience was really impressive and that he could really bring something to the table.
It is pretty clear that there is a significant personal element to how some Members feel about this issue. Owing to the way the process has worked, when the matter has come to the House before, there has not been a debate, so people have just been able to shout “No” without making it clear why they believe that the appointment should not happen. Having been part of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, it honestly feels to me that the process was very rigorous. Any outside observer would think that a rigorous process had been undertaken, and that Professor Sir Ian Kennedy was therefore the right person to be appointed to the role.
Question put.
The House divided:
Ayes 46, Noes 77.

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 7 to 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 11 December, be approved.

Savings Accounts

That the draft Help-to-Save Accounts Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 11 December, be approved.

Education

That the draft Higher Education (Access and Participation Plans) (England) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 4 December, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - TOFT HILL BYPASS

Helen Goodman: The life of my constituent Alex Wright was literally shattered when a van drove into her living room and totally destroyed it. She had to move out for months while the house was rebuilt.
For years, the residents of Toft Hill have been calling for a bypass, and 950 people have signed this petition. This is not purely a local issue; it raises questions of national road policy. Currently the criteria focus on housing and congestion. We would like to see a rebalancing of the criteria towards northern concerns, such as economic development and quality of life.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Toft Hill,
Declares that the A68 that runs through Toft Hill is unsuitable and unsafe for the volume and nature of vehicles, especially HGV Lorries; and further that the proximity of the primary school and proposed future development in the village would make this stretch of road more dangerous to local residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to priorities a new relief road to alleviate the problems faced by residents of Toft Hill.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002098]

Neuroblastoma

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jo Churchill.)

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am honoured to be called to speak in this Adjournment debate. It is a great honour, as a Member of Parliament, to be able to make representations in this House on local cases, and this particular case is something I have been very much affected by. I have met the parents of the young boy concerned, and I would be grateful if the House would allow me to explain the nature of the case I am here to plead this evening. I wanted to hold this debate on funding for the treatment of children who are diagnosed with neuroblastoma, a specific form of childhood cancer. It is very debilitating, arises in immature nerve cells and is the third most common type of childhood cancer, affecting about 100 children every year in Britain.
Members may be familiar with the case of Bradley Lowery, a young boy from Sunderland who struck up a friendship with the England footballer, Jermain Defoe, after appearing as a Sunderland mascot. Bradley suffered from neuroblastoma and his cheerfulness and great courage touched the hearts of so many people. Very sadly, Bradley passed away last year. He was only six years old, but in his short life he touched the hearts of millions.
It can be very difficult to spot the early symptoms of neuroblastoma, as they can be vague and mistaken for other childhood conditions. There are options to deal with the illness, but the case I briefly want to describe involves a young boy, Alfie Ward, who is now 15, and who lives in my constituency in Ashford. He is now battling this disease for the third time. The problem we have is that the NHS, under its current dispensation and policy, funds treatment only in the first instance. However, as Alfie started nursery, having battled the disease and survived this appalling affliction, it became apparent that it had come back.
At this point, I want to make the case for the NHS to review its policy on not funding relapses. As I understand it, about half the people who suffer from this appalling illness relapse, if they recover. It seems very harsh to adopt a policy whereby people can be funded the first time that they are affected by the illness, but not for subsequent relapses. In Alfie’s case, he has been denied treatment. As I said, this is the third time that he has had the illness. Now he, his family and his parents are under the extreme pressure of having to raise something like £600,000 so that he can get treatment.
In wrapping up my remarks, I want to say that £600,000 is a huge amount of money. It is to their eternal credit that Alfie’s parents, who I have met—

Jim Shannon: rose—

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Jim Shannon: I could not let the debate go by without commenting on a young gentleman in Northern Ireland. Some things in Northern Ireland cross the barricade, and one of those was the touching story of young Oscar Knox, whose battle with neuroblastoma touched people  from every part of the Province and in whose memory I stand in this House today. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must do more to fund the treatment of this cancer in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, instead of parents having to try to raise money to help their children? We must look towards more treatment options as well. Does he agree with that? I know the answer.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made representations from his part of the country. People face this problem across the country. It is not widely known, because the absolute numbers are not great, but the suffering is severe. We absolutely have to try to think of a way to reach an accommodation on funding, because £600,000 is a huge amount to raise.

Jim Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this very serious issue to the House, and I am sure that many people in Coventry and the west midlands would support him too. It is tragic to pick up a newspaper and read about families trying to raise money for treatment abroad that they cannot get in this country. We wish him well in his endeavours to get some justice for his constituents.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am touched by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. It is delightful to see cross-party agreement on this. It is a great honour to raise this issue—it goes to the heart of what one does as a constituency MP. I have met Alfie’s parents and have been incredibly impressed by the way they have conducted themselves, and by their bravery and courage. They are totally devoid of self-pity. They have just got on with it and raised a great deal of money, and I am hopeful that they will reach their target.
In the case of relapses, however, the obligation should not fall on the shoulders of parents and friends to go through what is a very stressful experience. We have all raised money for various causes in our time, and it is a stressful and time-consuming endeavour. As a society, we have to consider ways in which the NHS or the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence can fund treatment for relapses so that the parents of young boys such as Alfie Ward do not have to go through that kind of suffering and pressure simply to give their son a fighting chance of life.
I am grateful to have secured this debate, on an issue that has been raised by other people, and it is a privilege to have raised it in this forum. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Steve Brine: I congratulate my hon. Friend and parliamentary office neighbour, the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), on securing this debate on such an important issue.
It is a privilege to be cancer Minister—I hear some of the worst and some of the best. We know that cancer is a disease that will affect most of us, either directly or indirectly, at some point. I suspect it will affect everybody in the House tonight. That is particularly true, and somewhat inevitable, as the population ages, but it is  especially heartbreaking, is it not, when cancer afflicts children and teenagers, as it has his constituent Alfie? I have young children myself, and I cannot help but think about that.
Neuroblastoma is an uncommon cancer—there are about 95 cases in the whole of the UK each year—but it has one of the lowest survival rates of all the childhood cancers, and that is why raising awareness of it is vital and why I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it to the attention of the House. As he says, it is always a privilege to speak here and to raise issues on behalf of constituents.
I will come in a minute to how we are prioritising investment, which is so important, in research and improving access to drugs for cancer, particularly those that are less survivable. First I would like to pay tribute to the Bradley Lowery Foundation—my hon. Friend mentioned Bradley—which is providing fantastic support to Alfie’s family, for which I thank it. As a football fan myself—okay, I am a Spurs fan—I saw several times how Bradley’s smile lit up many football grounds, including his own in Sunderland, before he sadly lost his own battle against neuroblastoma, as my hon. Friend said. His legacy is the tremendous awareness of this rare cancer that he raised in his short life. He encouraged a huge amount of fundraising for treatment and research that will help so many children. I often think, whether we live for 100 years or 100 minutes, we all in some way change the world we are born into, and that is certainly true of Bradley’s life.
In England, we want something that is very difficult but quite simple to convey: we want to have access to the best cancer services in the world, especially for children and young people who have to face this disease so early in their lives. That is why the Government—this Prime Minister, the previous Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and I—have prioritised cancer services. Since 2010, we have seen year-on-year increases in the number of people surviving. At the end of last year, this country had its best survival figures ever, which is of course something to be pleased about, but just one person who is battling cancer will not feel like that.
We know that there is a huge amount more to be done. NHS England is leading the health and care system in implementing every one of the 96 cancer strategy’s recommendations with the aim of achieving our ambition to save a further 30,000 lives a year by 2020—although if we can do more, we should. NHS England has committed some £600 million to support the delivery of the strategy. No one will hear me speak about cancer without mentioning early diagnosis, which is the most crucial factor that we know of in successfully treating neuroblastoma or any other cancer.
In 2016, some £200 million was made available to the new cancer alliances, challenging them to encourage innovative ways in which to diagnose cancer earlier and to improve the care for those living with cancer. That is so important. Members will have seen the television campaign by Cancer Research UK, which includes the words “A mum with cancer is still a mum.” Many people are battling cancer, but they are still living their lives. It is always important to say that. The funds are also intended to ensure that all cancer patients receive the care that is right for them, and we are rolling out one-stop shops throughout the country. We have invested  some £130 million in upgrading and replacing radiotherapy equipment, to ensure that patients have the best and latest equipment regardless of where they live.
Cancer services for children and young people, including the treatment of neuroblastoma, are specially commissioned by NHS England. Neuroblastoma is often treated with radiotherapy. In 2013, a £23 million fund was used to improve access to intensity modulated radiotherapy, a precise form of radiotherapy that can be directed more accurately at cancers and allows a higher dose of radio- therapy to be given with, hopefully, fewer side effects. That is particularly important to very young children, who may have weaker immune systems and who are less resilient to more invasive treatments.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his endeavours. It is always a pleasure to listen to his response to any constituency issue. In England, responsibility clearly lies with him, but is there any possibility of discussions with the regional Governments with a view to joint working, whatever their role might be? I think of young Oscar Knox in Northern Ireland, and that is really my reason for making the suggestion.

Steve Brine: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is here. He raised the same point last week during the Westminster Hall debate on blood cancers, to which I responded. As he had to leave before I did so, I will repeat what I said then. Obviously, once devolved government returns to Stormont and there is a Health Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, I shall be happy to meet him or her, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to be involved in that meeting. We shall then be able to talk about some of the successes that we have had in England and some of the things that I am sure we can learn from Northern Ireland.
An even more precise form of radiotherapy that can be used in neuroblastoma treatment is proton beam therapy. It sounds like something out of the future, and in many ways it is, but the future is coming. In 2012, the Government provided some £250 million for the building of two PBT centres in England, at University College Hospital here in the capital and at the Christie cancer centre in Manchester. I had the privilege of visiting the Christie last year—I happened to be there in the autumn, for some reason—to see its new PBT facilities, which are incredible and which will be providing treatment for patients later this year. As a result, the NHS will no longer need to send young patients to the United States—which has caused great upheaval to patients and their families, has had an impact on patient outcomes and has, of course, involved huge expense to the families and the NHS—for this cutting-edge treatment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne spoke about guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. We want the very best new innovative treatments, such as the promising antibody therapy we have heard about today, to be available on the NHS. NICE is the independent body that provides guidance on whether drugs and other treatments represent a clinically effective and cost-effective use of resources in the NHS—a publicly funded health system. I am advised that NICE is currently considering two antibody-based treatments for neuroblastoma. It is appraising Dinutuximab-beta for use in high-risk neuroblastoma, but the appraisal has been delayed as NICE awaits  additional evidence from the drug company. Final guidance on the use of any drug can be issued only after careful consideration of all the available evidence and extensive engagement with stakeholders. That has to be the right approach, however frustrating it is. Another drug used in the treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma is dinutuximab or Unituxin. NICE’S appraisal of this drug, which is in the same family as Dinutuximab-beta but is distinctly different, has also been suspended as demand for the drug in the United States has exceeded expectations and is outstripping the company’s ability to meet global need.
I stress that just because drugs are not routinely available to patients on the NHS that does not preclude their use. Clinicians can make a case on a patient’s behalf for exceptional funding if they believe a particular treatment would deliver the best clinical outcomes. I understand that Alfie’s consultant is looking at doing that. Individual funding requests made by a supporting clinician are always a potential route for access to treatments that are not currently commissioned by the NHS. NHS England is not aware of any IFR in Alfie’s case, but I will be happy to make it so, working with my hon. Friend, following tonight’s debate.
Despite the strides we have made in increasing overall cancer survival rates, we recognise that there are some cancers where progress has been far too slow. That is why our focus for these cancers is on research and innovation, and ensuring that proven innovations, once they are discovered, are adopted swiftly across the health service in England. I am pleased to say that the Government are fully supportive of the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce, which I launched last summer here in the House, specifically to address the survivability gap between the least and the most survivable cancers. I met the taskforce just before Christmas to discuss how we can work together to raise awareness of the symptoms of cancer and how we can ensure that less survivable cancers have better access to research funding. That is a promising workstream. The taskforce is a cutting-edge group and I look forward to working with it.
Cancer Research UK is also funding research to better understand childhood cancers such as neuroblastoma. In September 2016, the Government announced the largest ever investment in health research infrastructure—£816 million over five years from April 2017 for 20 National Institute for Health Research biomedical research centres in England. That was a big step, and I am sure hon. Members recall the Prime Minister’s announcement. That includes £61.5 million in the biomedical research centre at the Royal Marsden Hospital here in London and the Institute of Cancer Research. The NIHR spent £137 million on cancer research in 2016-17—an increase from just over £100 million in 2010-11. That investment in cancer research is of huge importance and constitutes the largest in a disease area.

Mary Glindon: I am not sure whether this has any bearing on the subject of the debate, but will the accelerated access review help to bring some of these potential new treatments forward more quickly?

Steve Brine: The accelerated access review is an important piece of work, and I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady in more detail than I have time to go into now. It is  about bringing treatments quickly to the market for patients’ use once they are approved, instead of having to take a rather arduous and tortuous route.
I want to put on record that we want the NHS to be the best in the world at treating childhood cancers and all cancers. We can only imagine the pain that Alfie’s family are going through, and they have our prayers and our support. I hope my hon. Friend the Member  for Spelthorne will agree that the Government are working hard, even in difficult economic times, to implement the cancer strategy, to invest in research and to continue the investment in cancer treatment to ensure that we can lead the world in the fight against cancer and make this a reality by making life better for people like Alfie.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.